CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2019) 01 GAU CK 0058

Aynal Hoque vs Union Of India And 5 Ors

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 28 January 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J · Ajit Borthakur, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 305 Of 2019
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 384 words

AM Bujor Barua, J

1.

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. J Payeng, learned counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners' Tribunal and Border Areas, Ms. A Verma, learned standing counsel for the authorities under the NRC as well as Ms. G Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India.

2.

On being referred by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, IM(D)T Case No.7156/1998 was registered before the IM(D)T, Barpeta. On the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 being declared ultravires, the reference made against the petitioner was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No. 6th , Barpeta and was re-numbered as F.T. Case No.479/2016. By the order 08.12.2017, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who entered Assam after 25.03.1971.

3.

Assailing the order dated 08.12.2017, the petitioner prefers this writ petition and the sole ground raised for the present is that by another order dated 10.04.2017 in F.T. Case No.31/2015, he was declared by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 6, Barpeta to be an Indian citizen. However, it is taken note that F.T. Case No.31/2015 was against Aynal Hoque son of Chandu @ Chan Mamud, village: Dighipam, P.S: Baghbar, District: Barpeta, Assam, whereas F.T. Case No.479/2016 was against Aynal Hoque son of Niyasan, village: Salmara, P.S: Tarabari, district: Barpeta.

4.

In the circumstance, it is directed that the Foreigners Tribunal No. 7 shall call for the records of F.T. Case No.31/2015 from the Foreigners Tribunal No. 6, Barpeta and from the records of F.T. Case No.31/2015 shall verify and satisfy itself as to whether the proceedee in F.T. Case No.31/2015 and the proceedee in F.T. Case No.479/2016 are one and the same person. If they are found to be one and the same person, the Tribunal shall pass its reasoned order and if the Tribunal concludes that they are not one and the same person, the earlier order dated 08.12.2017 in F.T. Case No.479/2016 shall prevail.

5.

The petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal on 18.02.2019 and the Tribunal shall do the needful as indicated above within a period of 7(seven) days thereafter.

6.

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.