SAMSUL HOQUE Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(GAU)-2018-8-86
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 21,2018

SAMSUL HOQUE Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A. K. Goswami, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned special standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7; Ms. G. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel, Election Commission of India, appearing for respondent No.4 and Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel, NRC appearing for respondent No.5.
(2.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 06.05.2017 in F.T. Case No.07/2016 as well as the order dated 11.07.2018 in Misc. Case No.20/2017 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-I, Karimganj. By the order dated 06.05.2017, the petitioner was held to be a foreigner, who had entered into India from Bangladesh on or after 25.03.1971. By the order dated 11.07.2018, the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order dated 06.05.2017 was rejected.
(3.) On 15.09.2016 the case was fixed for filing written statement. On 15.09.2016 and 16.11.2016, the petitioner prayed for time for filing written statement and the same was granted. However, on and from 18.01.2017, the petitioner remained absent without any steps, as a result of which the learned Tribunal passed the order dated 06.05.2017. On 23.10.2017 the petitioner had filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. On receipt of the said application, Misc. Case No.20/2017 was registered. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said application, the petitioner stated as follows:- "3. That, petitioner/OP is a Mason by profession and doing work at Mamit District Mizoram under one Headman Abdul Hoque of Vill. Kanishail, P.S. & Dist. Karimganj, Petitioner/OP temporarily residing at Mungsung Mizoram in a rented home regarding his work. The original contractor of his work is a Mizo person under whom the petitioner did his work. After appearing in the FT Case No.07/2016, the petitioner went to Mizoram for his work to earn his livelihood informing his engaged Advocate and on the next date step was taken by engaged lawyer, as the petitioner could not come to attend his case from Mizoram in the meantime a riot between Mizo people and non-Mizo people started at Mizoram (work place of petitioner) and due to this reason the petitioner/OP and his colleagues are remain bound to stay at a place at Mizoram for their safety of life and also payment of the work also stopped by the original Mizo Contractor, as a result of that the petitioner/OP fells in a critical situation and failed to attend the Tribunal in due time to contest his case. Petitioner has 5 minor children, wife and widow mother, there is no other person to contact with the engaged lawyer of the case and no step has been taken in this case/proceeding, resulting which the case of the petitioner decided exparte against him, declaring him as a Foreigner on 06.05.2017. The petitioner doing job at Mizoram since last 15 years. 4. That, some days ago the payment was made to the petitioner by the contractor and the situation was normal at the work place of petitioner and the petitioner immediately came to his house and came to the Tribunal and applied for certified copies of his case on 26.09.2017 and after receiving the same he came to know that his case was decided exparte declaring him as a Foreigner by this Tribunal.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.