Juran Ali v. The Union of India and 5 Ors

ORDER

10.12.2024 (K. R. Surana, J.) Heard Mr. P. C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC, appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr A Kalita, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department and FT matters, representing respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6, Mr P Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 4, and Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶2By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 13.08.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal 2nd, Dhubri, in FT Case No. 564/F/15, bearing Police Reference Case No. 296/98, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post-Page No.# 3/8

25.03.1971 stream.

¶3At the outset, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters has submitted that from the various Voters Lists exhibited by the petitioner for the years 1960, 1966, 1970, 1985, 1997, 2005, 2008, 2017, the name of the father of the petitioner is constantly changing and his father's aliases are projected to be Rahman Ali, Rahman Sk, Abdur Rahman @ Abdul Rahman @ A. Rahman. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner was required to prove that the petitioner, namely, Juran Ali, whose name appears in the Voters List of 1966 and 1970, is the same person, which is unbelievable, as his father's name appearing in the said Voters Lists, is constantly changing, which indicates that there are different persons in those Voters Lists. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the petitioner has failed to establish his linkage with his projected father, the opinion of the learned Tribunal warrants no interference.

¶4Records as called for have been received. We have examined the records.

¶5It is seen that in the written statement filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has disclosed his name and his father's name appearing in the Voters List of different years, as well as the other names appearing in the said Voters List of 1966. Similarly, the names of the family members appearing in the Voters List of 1970 are also pleaded, clarifying that his parents and elder brother had died earlier, as such their names do not appear in the Voters List of 1970. Similarly, the description of the family members whose names appear in the Voters List of 1985, 1997 etc., is also given. The written Page No.# 4/8 statement contains the different names of his father. A similar assertion is found to be made in the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his case. Along with the evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has exhibited the following documents:-

¶1Certified copy of electoral roll of 1960 (Exbt-1)

¶2Certified copy of electoral roll of 1966 (Exbt-2)

¶3Certified copy of electoral roll of 1970 (Exbt-3)

¶4Certified copy of electoral roll of 1985 (Exbt-4)

¶5Certified copy of electoral roll of 1997 (Exbt-5)

¶6Certified copy of electoral roll of 2005 (Exbt-6)

¶7Certified copy of electoral roll of 2008 (Exbt-7)

¶8Certified copy of electoral roll of 2017 (Exbt-8)

¶6It may be pertinent to state here that records also reveal that on 29.06.2018, the petitioner as DW-1, was cross-examined along with DW-2, namely, Samsul Hoque, who is stated to be the neighbour of the petitioner. There is no cross-examination with regard to the existence of the name of the petitioner in the Voters List of 1966 regarding the various aliases of his projected father.

¶7We have also taken note of the fact that on 31.03.2018, the petitioner has filed Petition No. 2144, by which a prayer was made to call for a Police Verification Report as regards the actual name, identity and address of the petitioner and his father. On such petition, the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal 2nd, Dhubri, passed an order dated

31.03.2018, called for a Police Verification Report to ascertain whether the petitioner, namely, Juran Ali, S/o Rokman Ali of Village-Baladmara, P.S.- Fakirganj and Juran Ali, S/o Rahman Ali @ Rahman Sk @ Abdur Rahman @ Abdul Rahman @ A. Rahman, of Page No.# 5/8 village Bhalukmari, P.S.- Fakirganj, are one and the same identical person as claimed, with a further direction to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri, to appoint a competent Enquiry Officer (EO, for short).

¶8On the next date fixed, i.e., on 27.04.2018, the Police Verification Report was received by the learned Tribunal. The said Report is available at Page-85 of the records of the Tribunal. The ASI of Police of Fakirganj Police Station had submitted a report and after referring to the then certified copy of the electoral roll, copy of EPIC, electoral roll of 1997, legacy data of NRC 1951, electoral roll of 2018, as well as a copy of affidavit, arrived at a conclusion that Juran Ali, son of Rokman Ali of Village-Baladmara, P.S.- Fakirganj and Juran Ali, son of Rahman Ali @ Rahman Sk @ Abdur Rahman @ Abdul Rahman @ A. Rahman, of village Bhalukmari, P.S.- Fakirganj, are one and the same identical person. He has further recorded that he has found Juran Ali @ Juran Sk., are one and the same identical person and he is an Indian citizen, as per the documents. The said report by the A.S.I of Police dated 27.04.2018, was forwarded by the Officer-In-Charge, Fakirganj Police Station on 27.04.2018.

¶9Although the Police Report was received and its receipt has been recorded in the order sheet dated 27.04.2018, there is no discussion by the learned Tribunal on the said report.

¶10The procedure for obtaining such report is found to be covered under paragraph-4 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which provides for discovery and production Page No.# 6/8 of any document. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that as a report has been called for, the learned Tribunal is required to deal with the said report. Moreover, if the learned Tribunal is of the view that the said document was not proved by the petitioner (i.e., proceedee) in accordance with law, that ought to have been mentioned in the opinion.

¶11Moreover, in the present case at hand, it is the case of the petitioner that his own name appears in the Voters List of 1966, which is a document purportedly showing the entry of the petitioner in the State of Assam prior to 25.03.1971. Therefore, irrespective of whether the petitioner has been able to prove various aliases of his father, the entry of his own name in the Voters List of 1966, is required to be independently dealt with by the learned Tribunal.

¶12Irrespective of the fact that the Police Verification Report is received, as the said Police Verification Report has come in the record on the strength of the petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to prove the said Police Verification Report, as the enquiry ordered by the Tribunal was not in its own motion, but same was on the strength of the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶13Therefore, Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case, where the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal, for giving an opportunity to the petitioners for proving the Police Verification Report dated 27.04.2018. Page No.# 7/8

¶14In view of above, the impugned opinion dated 13.08.2018, passed by learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal 2nd, Dhubri, in Case No. F.T. Case No. 564/F/15, is set aside.

¶15Resultantly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal 2nd, Dhubri, for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the Police Verification Report and, thereafter, pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law.

¶16In the interest of expeditious determination by the learned Tribunal and to compel the petitioner to appear before the said learned Tribunal, Court is inclined to provide as follows:-

i) The petitioner shall appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri, within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of this order and shall furnish bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only), with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the said authority.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal 2nd, Dhubri, on or before 08.01.2025, and by producing a certified copy of this order, await further direction from the said learned Tribunal.

¶17In the event the petitioner does not appear before the learned Tribunal within the date fixed, it would be open for the said learned Tribunal to presume that the petitioner is not interested to prove the above referred document and close the matter and pass a Page No.# 8/8 fresh opinion in accordance with law.

¶18With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶19Let the Tribunal's records be sent back.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/8 GAHC010231812018 ooooooo 2024:GAU-AS:12616 ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/7584/2018ooooooooo JURANoALIo S/O.oLT.oABDURoRAHAMAN,oR/O.oVILL.oBHAKUAMARI,oP.S.oSOUTHo SALMARA,oDIST.oDHUBRI,oASSAM. VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo5oORS.o REP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIA,oDEPTT.oOFoHOME,oNEW DELHI-110011. 2:THEoSTATEoOFoASSAM oREP.oBYoTHEoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oHOMEoDEPTT. oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-06. 3:THEoSUPDT.oOFoPOLICEo(B) oDIST.oDHUBRI oASSAM-783301. 4:THEoDY.oCOMMISSIONER oDIST.oDHUBRI oASSAM-783301. 5:THEoELECTIONoCOMMISSIONERoOFoINDIA oREP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARYoOFoTHEoCOMMISSION oH.Q.oNEWoDELHI-110011. 6:THEoSTATEoCO-ORDINATOR Page No.# 2/8 NRC ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-05 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P C DEY, MR. I HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND