- Court
- High Court of Gauhati
- Decided
- 12 May 2023
- Bench
- Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, Robin Phukan
- Case no.
- WP(C) 2021/2020
Follow Gauhati High CourtFollow Achintya Malla Bujor BaruaFollow Robin Phukan
Judgment
PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010062312020 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/2021/2020o RANGoVANUoBEWAo D/O-oLT.oAHAMMADoSHEIKH,oW/O-oSABAHANoALI,oVILL-oJAWKATADIA,oP.S. BOKO,oDIST.-oKAMRUPo(R),oASSAM VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo5oORS.o REP.oBYoTHEoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIA,oMINISTRYoOFoHOMEo AFFAIRS,oSHASTRIoBHAWAN,oTRILOKoMARG,oNEWoDELHI-o110001 2:THEoELECTIONoCOMMISSIONoOFoINDIA oREP.oBYoTHEoCHIEFoELECTIONoCOMMISSIONER oNEWoDELHI-o110001 3:THEoSTATEoOFoASSAM oREP.oBYoTHEoCOMM.oANDoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oHOMEoDEPTT. oDISPUR oGHY-06 4:THEoSTATEoCOORDINATORoOFoNATIONALoREGISTERoOFoCITIZENS oASSAM o1SToFLOOR oACHYUToPLAZA oGHYoSHILLONGoROAD oBHANGAGARH oGHY oASSAM oPIN-o781005 5:THEoDY.oCOMMISSIONERoOFoKAMRUPo(R)oDISTRICT oAToAMINGAON Page No.# 2/4 P.O. P.S. AMINGAON DIST.- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) KAMRUP (R) DISTRICT AT AMINGAON P.S. AMINGAON DIST.- KAMRUP (R) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A T SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN O R D E R
12.05.2023 (A.M. Bujor Barua, J)
Heard Mr. AT Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L Devi, learned CGC appearing on behalf of respondents in the Union of India as well as for the authorities in the NRC, Mr. G Sarma, learned counsel for the State respondents in the Home Department of Government of Assam, Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Ms. U Das, learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(R).
¶2The petitioner Rang Vanu Bewa had been referred to the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(R) at Boko for rendering an opinion as to whether she is a person who entered the State of Assam from the specified territory on or after
25.03.1971 resulting in registration of BFT Case No. 1560/2016, wherein an opinion dated 23.04.2019 was given that the petitioner is a foreigner. Being Page No.# 3/4 aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted.
¶3In the writ proceeding, the petitioner relies on the voters list of 1970 of village Jawkatadia, Mouza-Sontali in the Kamrup district, which contains the name of Rangvanu wife of Sobaham at serial No. 943. The petitioner claims that Rangvanu of the 1970 voters list is the petitioner proceedee herself and therefore, as her name appears in the voters list of 1970, she cannot be considered to be a person who entered the State of Assam on or after
25.03.1971 from the specified territory.
¶4The Tribunal rejected the said claim of the petitioner that she is the person whose name appears in the voters list of 1970 of village Jawkatadia because of some discrepancies of age of the petitioner in the written statement and the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal.
¶5The question to be decided would be whether Rangvanu of the voters list of 1970 of village Jawkatadia and the petitioner proceedee Rang Vanu Bewa are one and the same person. The said question had not been gone into by the Tribunal.
¶6In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to pass a reasoned order on the same. The respondents in the Home Department may make their own verification and find out as to whether the petitioner proceedee Rang Vanu Bewa and Rangvanu, wife of Sobaham of the voters list of 1970 of village Jawkatadia are one and the same person. Upon doing the needful, the Tribunal may pass its reasoned order.
¶7If the reasoned order is in favour of the petitioner, the same shall prevail over the earlier opinion dated 23.04.2019 and if it goes against the petitioner, consequence as per law shall follow. Page No.# 4/4
¶8The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Foreigners Tribunal on
27.06.2023. Till the reasoned order is passed, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.
¶9The writ petition is allowed as indicated above.
¶10Send back the LCR immediately.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.