GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 16 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 16:

1. Heard Dr. K U Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jiten Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, FT & NRC. Also heard Shri P. Sharma, learned State Counsel, Assam; Mr. S S Roy, learned CGC and Shri H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A I Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI.

2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the opinion rendered by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal No. 2 Morigaon on 25th of May 2018 in FT case no. 3/2013 whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of the post 1971 stream.

Notice in this case was issued on 21/8/2018 and the operation of the impugned opinion was kept under suspension during pendency of this petition. Further, the writ petition was restricted to decide the lis vis-a-vis the petitioner only. The records requisitioned from the Trial Court have been received and the case is taken up for final disposal.

3. The petitioner claims that he had not received notice from the Tribunal regarding the proceedings against him. He claims that he received information about the pendency of the reference against him when he visited the NRC Centre for updating his NRC status. The petitioner immediately arranged for appearing before the Learned Tribunal to contest the reference pending against him. Upon making enquiry in the Tribunal, it was revealed that FT case number 3/2013 had been instituted in the Foreigners Tribunal no. 7 Morigaon, Assam not only against the petitioner but also against his wife and children.

4. The petitioner filed his written statement on the 11th of January 2018. He was thereafter examined as DW1 on 7th of February 2018 along with his wife, who was examined as DW2 and the government Gaonburha Bhim Rabidas was examined as DW3. In support of his claim of citizenship the petitioner exhibited 10 documents.

The petitioner exhibited the electoral roll of 1966 as Exhibit 1, where the name of his projected father appeared showing his age to be 45 years.

He exhibited the Electoral Roll of 1970 as Exhibit 2 claiming that the name of his projected father and projected mother appeared therein showing them to be aged about 50 years and 43 years respectively.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrELsz2xMeQnlz19YuS62rzd6HmjBqskPraeVPFNrYl3h&caseno=WP(C)/5582/2018&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010177322018&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.