GUWAHATI, India, June 2 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 30:

1. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by putting to challenge the opinion rendered vide impugned order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal no.4, Silchar in F.T. Case No. 105/2015. By the impugned judgment, the petitioner, who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal, has been declared to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971. It may however be mentioned that along with the petitioner, her sons Diju Das, Pintu Das and daughters Mukta Das, Sukta Das and Bijoya Das have also been declared as foreigners.

2. The facts of the case may be put in a nutshell as follows:

(i) A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Cachar District, against the petitioner giving rise to the aforesaid F.T. Case No. 105/2015.

(ii) As per requirement u/s 9 of the Foreigner's Act, 1946 to prove that the proceedee is not a foreigner, the petitioner had filed the written statement on 11.01.2016 along with certain documents.

(iii) The learned Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances and taking into account of the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946 had come to a finding that the petitioner, as opposite party had failed to discharge the burden cast upon her and accordingly, the opinion was rendered declaring the petitioner to be a foreign national post 25.03.1971. As mentioned above, along with the petitioner, her sons Diju Das, Pintu Das and daughters Mukta Das, Sukta Das and Bijaya Das have also been declared as foreigners.

3. We have heard Shri T. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department& NRC; Ms. R.B. Bora, learned GA, Assam, Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Shri P.S. Lahkar, learned CGC. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an order dated 10.02.2020.

4. Shri Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could prove her case with cogent evidence and in view of the fact that there was no rebuttal evidence, the learned Tribunal should have accepted the said proof and accordingly hold the petitioner to be a citizen of India. In this regard, he has referred to her evidence and the evidence of CW1 and also the following documentary evidence.

(i) Ext-1 is the Xerox copy of school certificate in the name of OP Maya Das and same was not countersigned by the higher authority.

(ii) Ext-2 is the Xerox copy of NRC data in the name of Nibaran Chandra Das, son of Nadia Ram Das.

(iii) Ext-3 is the Xerox copy of certified copy of voter list 1965 in the name of Nibaran Chandra Das.

(iv) Ext-4 is the Xerox copy of certified copy of voter list 2013 in the name of Nikunja Das and Naru Das, sons of Nibaran Das.

(v) Ext-5 is the Xerox copy of affidavit in the name of Nibaran Das.

(vi) Ext-6 is the Xerox copy of certified copy of voter list 1997 in the name of OP viz Maya Das, W/O-Dilu Das.

(vii) Ext-7 is the Xerox copy of voter ID in the name of OP

(viii) Ext-8 is the Xerox copy of marriage certificate in the name of OP.

(ix) Ext-9, 9(1), 9(2), 9(3) and 9(4) are Xerox copies of birth certificates of the OP's children.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62WnAguWdIzpkQRSySu9ghYC4hVUZZbDM9kKH8KusL1y7d&caseno=WP(C)/5617/2019&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010180042019&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.