WRIT PETITION 2311/2016 on 25 March 1971

Conclusion

WP(C) 2311/2016BEFOREHON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDHON’BLE MRS JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN(Ujjal Bhuyan, J)

Heard Mr H R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr R Dhar, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2.This petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 28.04.2016, passed by the writ Court in WP(C) No. 2311 of 2016, filed by the petitioner. 3.The related writ petition was filed challenging the legality and validity of order dated 08.01.2010, passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in FT Case No. 260 of 2007, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. As noticed above, by order dated 28.04.2016, the writ petition wasdismissed on the ground of long delay of 6 (six) years, which remained unexplained. Relevant portion of order dated 28.04.2016 reads as under:- 2.By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order dated 08.1.2010, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in FT Case No. 260 of 2007, whereby, petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3.On the face of it, it is seen that the impugned order was passed on 08.01.2010, i.e., more than 6 (six) years ago. On a query by the Court as to why there is so much of delay in filing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a handyman and did not have adequate knowledgeabout the consequences of not challenging the impugned order.

4. We are afraid we can accept such contention. Firstly, there is no averment in the writ petition explaining the inordinate delay of more than 6 (six) years in instituting the present challenge. Secondly, contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, notice of the proceeding wasserved on the petitioner, whereafter, he had appeared before the Tribunal. Petitioner had exhibited 3 (three) documents to prove that he was an Indian citizen.Learned Tribunal, on due consideration held that petitioner had failed to discharge his burden, which was on him to prove that he was not a foreigner and accordingly, he was declared to be foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream. When the petitioner had contested the proceeding, question of his not having adequate knowledge of adverse consequences befalling him following such decision does not and cannot arise. There is clear delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court. 5.We find no good reason to entertain the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. —

4. In the review petition, petitioner has stated in paragraphs- 9 and 10 that for maintaining his livelihood, he worked as handyman in Tinsukia district where he stayed in a rented house. He had engaged a counsel, Sri Abdul Rouf, to defend his case and acted as per his advice. He submitted all documents relating to his citizenship to his counsel. He was unaware of the Court proceedings. However, one day, he was informed that he was declared as a foreigner, whereafter, heapproached Advocate Sujit Roy of Tinsukia, who assured him that he would file an appeal on his behalf before the High Court and took Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand). Thereafter, he returned back to his native place at Sutarkandi, wherehe again approached Advocate Mumtaz Begum, who told him that she would engage an Advocate in the Gauhati High Court to plead on his behalf. After some days, hewas informed that his case was dismissed.

5. We are afraid the above cannot be a ground for reviewing the order dated28.04.2016. In fact, in the order dated 28.04.2016, it was noticed that submission was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitionerwas a handyman and did not have adequate knowledge about the consequences of the Tribunal’s order or of not challenging such order. The same submission is repeated in the review petition. It is also evident that review petitioner was repre

sented by learned counsel before the writ Court, whose submissions were considered but rejected by the Court. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit inthe review petition to warrant interference. Review petition is accordingly dismissed.6.Before parting with the record, we notice with concern that despite the petitioner being declared a foreigner by the Tribunal on 08.01.2010 and despite his writ petition being dismissed on 28.04.2016, the review petitioner continuesto remain a free man.

7. Registry to inform the concerned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Superintendent ofPolice (Border) and Deputy Commissioner to take immediate follow-up steps to implement the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court.