MD JALAL UDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA
LAWS(GAU)-2018-8-102
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 27,2018

Md Jalal Uddin Appellant
VERSUS
Union Of India Represented By Secretary To Govt Of India Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.K. Goswami, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned special standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 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.5 and Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent No.6.
(2.) Challenge in this writ petition is to an order 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.5, Morigaon in Case No.F.T.(C) 308/2016, whereby, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into India after 25.03.1971 as well as to an order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-5th, Morigaon, on an application filed by the petitioner under Order 3A of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, whereby, the said application was rejected on the ground that the petition was filed beyond the period of 30 days and, therefore, cannot be accepted.
(3.) Because of failure of the petitioner to file written statement on four occasions, the case was fixed on 14.06.2017 for ex parte decision. On that day, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for fixing another date for filing written statement. The petition was rejected fixing 03.07.2017 for ex parte order. As the ex parte order could not be prepared on 03.07.2017, next date was fixed on 18.07.2017 for ex parte order. On 18.07.2017, the writ petitioner, who was present before the Court, prayed for vacating the ex parte order along with a prayer to allow him to file written statement. On such prayer, the ex parte order was vacated. The petitioner had also filed written statement. 03.08.2017 was fixed for evidence of the petitioner. On that day, the petitioner was absent on the ground of illness and accordingly, 16.08.2017 was fixed for evidence. On 16.08.2017, an adjournment petition was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of inability of the petitioner to come and adduce evidence on account of flood. This petition was rejected on the ground that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 was passed.;


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