High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1982/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) B.K. Sharma, J This is yet another case of extending protective hands to the declared f oreigners (illegal Bangladeshi migrants) by the State Govt. by not initiating an d completing the required action, which it is bound to do under the provisions o f the Citizenship Act and the Rules framed there-under. As a consequence thereof , the 11 petitioners, namely, (1) Nazir Uddin, (2) Afia Begum, (3) Badrul Haque, (4) Aklas Ali, (5) Kamrul Haque, (6) Siri Begum, (7) Bibijan Bibi, (8) Abdul Sa hid, (9) Abdul Rahman, (10) Abdul Malik and (11) Fatima, have continued to defy their registration with the Registering authority, which is required to be done, they being foreigners within the stream of 1966-71. Not only that their names w ere also not deleted from the voter list as is required to be done from the date of the declaration, which in the instant case are dated 12.11.2002 and 20.8.200 2, disentitling them to cast votes. As per the requirement of the provisions of the aforesaid acts and the rules framed thereunder, the declared foreigner withi n the stream of 1966-71 is required to register himself with the Registering aut hority within one month of the declaration by the Foreigners Tribunal, extendabl e by 60 days, but in the instant case, the petitioners not only have not registe red themselves with the Registering Authority for all these years (by now almost 11 years), but their names were also not deleted from the voter lists till fili ng of the writ petition in 2009. It is only upon noticing the aforesaid fact wh en this Court directed the State Govt. to delete their names from the voter list s, their names have been deleted. Thus, the State Govt. of its own did not delet e the names of the petitioners for all these years. 2. As was disclosed during the course of hearing of the writ petitions, as against the aforesaid legal provisions of not being able to cast votes by the foreigners within the stream of 1966-71 for 10(ten) years, the petitioners parti cipated in all the elections, be it Parliamentary, Assembly and Panchayat and th us contributed towards electing people’s representatives to the said institutio ns. It is only in Assam, such thing can happen in which not only the constitutio nal mandates are violated by not taking the required action in the matter of det ection and deportation of foreign nationals but they are also extended with the protective hands to remain in Assam (India) with all rights of a citizen includi ng the voting rights. 3. Both the writ petitions involving the above named 11 foreigners (illegal Bangladeshi migrants) having raised the same issue, have been heard together an d are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. The issue is, as to whether the Writ Court can issue any direction to the Registering Authority to r egister the petitioners as illegal Bangladeshi migrants within the stream of 196 6-71 after expiry of long 7(seven) years (by now almost 11 years) as against the stipulated period of limitation of 30 (thirty) days, which is extendable by ano ther 60(sixty) days by the Registering Authority. Facts in WP(C) 1980/2009
Legal Reasoning
4. The petitioners, namely, (1) Nazir Uddin, (2) Afia Begum, (3) Badrul Haq ue, (4) Aklas Ali, (5) Kamrul Haque and (6) Siri Begum, have filed this writ pet ition praying for a direction to the respondents to allow them to get their name s registered with the Foreigners Registration Office, Nagaon, as per the directi on contained in the order dated 12.11.2002 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Na gaon in FT Case No. 4600/1988. The prayer so made is on 18.5.2009 when the writ petition was filed. Thus, at the time of filing the writ petition, there was del ay of about 7(seven) years from the date of the order dated 12.11.2002 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal. By the said order, the petitioners had been declared t o be foreigners of the stream of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 and accordingly they were directed to register themselves in accordance with the Citizenship Act, 1955. 5. The FT Case No. 4600/1988 although was registered way back in 1988 but i t took long 14 (fourteen) years to dispose of the same with the aforesaid declar ation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid declaration, the petitioners had filed 6. a writ petition being WP(C) No. 7283/2004 which was disposed of by order dated 2 8.9.2004, granting liberty to the petitioners to get their names registered with the Foreigners Registration Office, Nagaon within a period of two months from t he date of the order. Legally speaking, the said order also could not have been passed in view of the expiry of the limitation period of 30 days, which can be e xtended by another 60 days. However, without dealing with the said issue, the or der was passed requiring the petitioners to register themselves within two month s. The petitioners defied the said order which they had obtained through their o wn writ petition and did not register themselves with the Registering authority.
Decision
7. According to the petitioners after the aforesaid order passed on 28.9.20 04, the communication sent by the advocate who had appeared for them did not rea ch them and they were under bonafide impression that the case was pending in the Court. As stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, they had come to know abo ut the order when the police personnel searched for them. Thereafter, they came to the High Court to enquire about their case only to find that the writ petitio n was disposed of on 28.9.2004. Thereafter, they obtain the certified copy on 24 .4.2009 and filed the writ petition on 18.5.2009. Facts in WP(C) 1982/2009 8. The petitioners, namely, (1) Bibijan Bibi, (2) Abdul Sahid, (3) Abdul Ra hman, (4) Abdul Malik and (5) Fatima have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to allow them to get their names registered with t he Foreigners Registration Office, Nagaon, as per the direction contained in the order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon in FT Case No. 4616/1988. The prayer so made is on 18.5.2009 when the writ petition was filed. Thus, in this case also, at the time of filing the writ petition, there was del ay of about 7(seven) years from the date of the order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal. By the said order, the petitioners have been declared to be foreigners of the stream of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 and accordingly they wer e directed to register themselves in accordance with the Citizenship Act, 1955. As in the earlier FT Case No. 4600/1988, this FT Case No. 4616/1988 also 9. , although was registered way back in 1988, took long 14 (fourteen) years to dis pose of the same with the aforesaid declaration. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid declaration, the petitioners had filed 10. a review petition in the Tribunal. As stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition , the same was not pressed as according to the petitioners, there is no provisio n of review under Foreigners Act, 1946. It has been stated in the writ petition that the FT case was not within the knowledge of the petitioners and accordingly they could not appear in the proceeding thereof, which resulted in the exparte declaration that they are foreigners (illegal Bangladeshi migrants) within the s tream of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. 12. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the petitioners have made a stateme nt that they went to get themselves registered with the Registering authority i. e. Foreigners Registration Office, Nagaon. As in the other writ petition in the instant writ petition also, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the r espondents to allow them to register themselves with the said Registering author ity. The prayer so made is in reference to the orders passed by this Court grant ing the said prayer, without however, dealing with the issue as to whether the p eriod of limitation prescribed by the statute can be extended exercising writ ju risdiction and that too for so many years and also in the given facts and circum stances. 12. As against the aforesaid statements made in paragraph 8 of the writ peti tion that the FT case No. 4616/1988 was not within their knowledge, in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that steps had been taken b y their father and husband of petitioner No.1 (Samerat Ali), who had appeared be fore the Tribunal on one occasion praying for time to file the Written Statement but subsequently, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners as h e died. 13. Further, as against the aforesaid statement of abandoning the review pet ition, there is no provision for review under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the file received from the Tribunal has revealed that as in the main proceeding, in the review petition also, after filing of the same on 27.3.2009, the petitioners did not appear on the dates fixed, which are 21.4.2009 and 29.4.2009, as a conseque nce of which the review petition was dismissed. Be it stated there that the revi ew petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 9/2009, about which there is no men tion in the writ petition, coupled with the fact that the same was dismissed bec ause of non-appearance of the petitioners. Thus, the stand of the petitioners th at they did not press the petition in absence of any review jurisdiction is a fa lse statement. The fact of the matter is that after filing of the writ petition, they did not appear before the Tribunal, as in the main proceeding, as a conseq uence of which the review petition was dismissed. Proceedings before the Tribunal in FT Case No. 4600/88 involved in WP(C) No. 198 0/2009. 14. In the instant case, the FT case was registered in 1988. It took long 14 years to conclude the proceeding. In between, many dates were fixed starting fr om 20.3.1991. As recorded in the order dated 18.4.1991, the petitioners had rece ived the notice, appeared before the Tribunal and prayed for another date, which was granted fixing the matter on 23.5.1991. On 23.5.1991 also, the petitioners appeared and prayed for time which was again granted fixing the mater on 24.6.19 91. Thereafter, on all the dates fixed, the petitioners remained absent and even tually the exparte declaration was made. 15. In the notice served on the petitioners, the grounds specified was that they had entered into Assam (India) after 1.1.1966 but before 25.3.1971 without any valid documents and started living at Village- Nahargaon, PS -Doboka in the district of Nagaon. The notice was duly served on all the petitioners as will be evident from the record/notice. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners appea red before the Tribunal on 18.4.1991 and prayed for time and the same was allowe d. However, they did not appear before the Tribunal thereafter, which naturally resulted in exparte hearing of the proceeding. Thereafter, they challenged the s aid order by filing WP(C) No. 7283/2004 which was disposed of on 28.9.2004 requi ring them to register themselves with the Registering Authority within two month s, which they did not do and now have taken the plea of communication gap betwee n them and their engaged counsel. In the process they have consumed long 7 years (by now 11 years). Proceedings before the Tribunal in FT Case No. 4616/88 involved in WP(C) No. 198 2/2009. 16. In this case also, the FT case was registered in 1988 and as per the ord er sheets, inspite of service of notice, the petitioners did not respond to the proceeding as is evident from the various orders passed during the period 28.5.1 991 to the date of passing the impugned order. There was initial appearance of t he petitioners on 20.4.1991 on which date an application was filed seeking time to file Written Statement. Thereafter, the petitioners abandoned the proceeding. It took long 14 years for the Tribunal to issue the declaration. 17. The records have revealed that the SP(B), Nagaon, deriving the prima fac ie satisfaction that the petitioners are illegal Bangladeshi migrants within the stream of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971, referred the matter to the Foreigners Tribunal , Nagaon. The said Tribunal sent notice on 30.3.1991 detailing the grounds that the petitioners had entered into Assam after 1.1.1966 but before 25.3.1971 witho ut any valid documents and started living at Village-Nahargaon, PS-Doboka in the district of Nagaon. The notice was received by the eldest member of the family, namely, Samerat Ali, husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the other pet itioners. On receipt of the notice, all the petitioners had appeared and by the aforesaid application dated 20.4.1991 prayed for time to file written statement, which they never did. Thereafter, although the prayer was allowed granting adjo urnment and the proceeding continued for long 14 years. Coupled with this, the p lea of not pressing the review petition, is also false, inasmuch as, the same wa s dismissed on 29.4.2009, because of non-appearance of the petitioners. The said order is also not under challenge in this proceeding. 18. Arguments : I have heard Mr. I. H. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. I have also heard Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned CGC. I have also meticulously gone th rough the records received from the Tribunal. Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that becaus 19. e of the grounds assigned in the writ petition, direction is required to be issu ed to the authority to allow the petitioners to register themselves with the Reg istering authority. As regards the failure on the part of the petitioners involv ed in WP(C) 1980/2009 to register themselves inspite of the earlier order of thi s Court dated 28.9.2004 passed in WP(C) No. 7283/2004, he submitted that the pet itioners being not aware of the said order, the time limit prescribed in the sai d order, which is two months is required to be extended. Having regard to the importance of the matter and the issue involved, th 20. e Court made a request to Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel to assist the Court, he readily accepted the request and made submissions on the issue. I plac e on record my appreciation for the assistance rendered by him. Analysis, Finding and Conclusion : 21. As recorded in the proceeding dated 15.6.2012, the petitioners, although , have been declared to be foreigners within the stream of 1966-71, they have be en enjoying all the rights of an Indian citizen including voting rights. For a r eady reference, the said order dated 15.6.2012 is quoted below :- (cid:28)Response from the Union and the State Government is necessary to resolve the is sue relating to the situation that has arisen due to non-registration of the pet itioners with the registering authority pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal d eclaring them to be the illegal Bangladeshi migrants within the stream of 1966-1 971. As pre the provision of Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, every per son who came to Assam on or after the 1st day of January, 1966 but before the 25 th day of March, 1971 and who has been detected to be a foreigner shall register himself in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government under Secti on 18 with such authority as may be specified in such rules. Section 6-A (6) (b) provides that if any person referred to above submits in the prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed authority within 60 days from the date of commenc ement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, on or from the date of which he has been detected to be a foreigner, whichever is later, a declaration that he d oes not wish to be governed by the provisions of that sub-section and sub-sectio ns (4) and (5), it shall not be necessary for such person to register himself un der Section (3). Thus the registration is a must, unless a person submits applic ation of non-registration to the prescribed authority within 60 days. The pertinent question that has arisen for determination in the instant case is that the petitioners having not registered themselves with the registering autho rity even after expiry of about 12 years, whether they would continue to be Indi an citizen with all sorts of facilities including the voting right.To clarify th e above position, State and Union Government shall invariably file their affidav it on or before the next date failing which personal appearance of the Union Hom e Secretary and the State Home Secretary will be considered. List on 17.7.2012. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners although have been declared to be foreigners within the stream of 1966-1971, th ey are happily settled in Assam with all the rights of Indian citizen including voting right and they have been casting their votes in all the elections. This i s a shocking revelation inasmuch as such of the foreigners within the stream of 1966-1971 are not entitled to vote. The State Government and Union Government sh all clarify as to how this could happen. Let copies of this order be furnished to Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned CGC and Mr. N . Upadhyay, learned State Counsel. (cid:29) 22. The issue as noted above is, as to whether the petitioners who have been declared to be foreigners (within the meaning of Sub-Section 3 of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955) can seek a writ of mandamus from this Court to exten d the time limit fixed which is one month from the date of declaration made by t he Tribunal, extendable upto 60 days, upon their failure to register as foreigne rs under the provisions of the Rules framed under the Act. So far as the petitio ners are concerned, the said question will have to be considered from the perspe ctive of their failure to do so without any reasonable excuse and inspite of the time granted by this Court way back in 2004. As per the requirement of the prov ision of Sub-section 3 of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, a person of I ndian origin, who has come to Assam on or after 1.1.1966 but before 25.3.1971 fr om the specified territory and as, since the date of his entry into Assam been o rdinarily resident in Assam and has been detected to be a foreigner, to register himself in accordance with the Rules made by the Central Govt. in that behalf u nder Section 18 of the said Act, with such authority, as may be specified in suc h rules. As per the requirement of the said provision, the name of such person i f included in any electoral roll in any Assembly or Parliamentary Constituency, shall be deleted there from. 23. Sub-Section 4 of Section 6A stipulates that the persons who registered u nder Sub-Section 3 shall be de-franchised for a period 10(ten) years with effec t from the date when he is detected to be a foreigner. Sub-Section 5 provides th at a person registered under Sub-section 3 shall be deemed to be a citizen of In dia for all purposes as from the date of expiry of the period of 10 (ten) years from the date on which he has been detected top be a foreigner. It will be appro priate to quote the said provision for a ready reference :- (cid:28)(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), every person of I ndian origin who - (a) came to Assam on or after the 1st day of January, 1966 but before the 25th d ay of March, 1971 from the specified territory; and (b) has, since the date of his entry into Assam, been ordinarily resident in Ass am; and (c) has been detected to be a foreigner, shall register himself in accordance with the rules made by the Central Governme nt in this behalf under section 18 with such authority (hereafter in this sub-se ction referred to as the registering authority) as may be specified in such rule s and if his name is included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliame ntary constituency in force on the date of such detection, his name shall be del eted therefrom. Explanation.- In the case of every person seeking registration under this sub-se ction, the opinion of the Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 holding such person to be a foreigner, shall be deemed to be suffici ent proof of the requirement under clause (c) of this sub-section and if any que stion arises as to whether such person complies with any other requirement under this sub-section, the registering authority shall, - (i) if such opinion contains a finding with respect to such other requirement, d ecide the question in conformity with such finding; (ii) if such opinion does not contain a finding with respect to such other requi rement, refer the question to a Tribunal constituted under the said Order having jurisdiction in accordance with such rules as the Central Government may make i n this behalf under section 18 and decide the question in conformity with the op inion received on such reference. (4) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall have, as from the date o n which he has been detected to be a foreigner and till the expiry of a period o f ten years from that date, the same rights and obligations as a citizen of Indi a (including the right to obtain a passport under the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and the obligations connected therewith), but shall not be entitled to ha ve his name included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary con stituency at any time before the expiry of the said period of ten years. A person registered under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be a citize (5) n of India for all purposes as from the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner. (cid:29) Above apart, there is also provision in the form of Sub-section 6 of Sec 24. tion 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, granting liberty to the person referred to in Sub-Section 3 to file an application in the prescribed form and to the presc ribed authority within 60 days from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner, declaring that he does not wish to be governed by the provisions o f that sub-section and sub-section 4 and 5. In such an eventuality, it shall not be necessary for such person to register himself under Sub-Section 3. The afore said provisions providing declaration to be made within 60 days from the date on which the person concerned has been declared or detected to be a foreigner with in the stream of 1966-71, has a bearing in reference to Rule 16(f) of the Citize nship Rules, 1956, as amended in 2005. Rule 16(f) stipulates the time limit for registration of a foreigner within the meaning of Section 6(A)(3), which is 30 d ays from the date of detection as a foreigner. The said period is extendable by another 60 days by the Registering authority for the reasons to be recorded in w riting. Similar provisions have been made in 2009 Rules which has repealed the 1 956 Rules. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the time l imit fixed by the statute, which is 30 days, from the date of detection as a for eigner, extendable by another 60 days by the Registering Authority for the reaso ns to be recorded in writing, can further be extended by the writ Court. 25. If we go by the said provisions of the Rules, the Registering authority cannot extend the period of registration for a further period extending the exte ndable period of 60 days. It was argued by Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Amicus Cu riae that the said extendable period of 60 days cannot further be extended. In t his connection, he has referred to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, wh ich reads as follows :- (2) (cid:28)Section 29. Savings. - (1) & & & & & & & Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribe d by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period wer e the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any p eriod of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any specia l or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall a pply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly exclude d by such special or local law. (3) (4) & & & & & & & & &.. (cid:29) 26. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae has also referred to the decis ions reported in (2008) 7 SCC 169 (Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Prin cipal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others) and (2009) 5 SCC 791 (Commiss ioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Ltd. and another). I n para 20 of Consolidated Engineering Enterprise (Supra), the Apex Court has hel d thus :- Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act inter alia provides that where any s (cid:28)20. pecial or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of l imitation different from the period of limitation prescribed by the Schedule, th e provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period was the period prescribe d by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation pr escribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the pr ovisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 shall apply only insofar as, and to the e xtent, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. When any sp ecial statute prescribes certain period of limitation as well as provision for e xtension up to specified time-limit, on sufficient cause being shown, then the p eriod of limitation prescribed under the special law shall prevail and to that e xtent the provisions of the Limitation Act shall stand excluded. As the intentio n of the legislature in enacting sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act is tha t the application for setting aside the award should be made within three months and the period can be further extended on sufficient cause being shown by anoth er period of 30 days but not thereafter, this Court is of the opinion that the p rovisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable because the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded because of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. However, merely because it i s held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to an application filed under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside an ward, one need not conclu de that provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would also not be applica ble to an application submitted under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. (cid:29) 27. In Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Supra), the Apex Court de aling with the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in referen ce to Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, held that the High Court has no pow er to condone delay beyond the period specified in Section 35 A and that the tim e limit prescribed fro making reference to the High Court, is absolute and un-ex tendable by Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In paragraph 27, 32, 33 and 36 of the said judgement, it has been observed thus :- (cid:28)27. The other decision relied on by the counsel for the appellant is M.V. Elisa beth v. Harwan Investment and Trading (P) Ltd. The learned Additional Solicitor General heavily relied on the following observations: (SCC p. 466, para 66) (cid:28)66. The High Courts in India are superior courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expres sly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdict ion of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the ju risdiction to determine their own powers. (cid:29) Here again, there is no dispute about the above proposition. The High Courts in India are having inherent and plenary powers, and as a court of record the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. However, the said principle has to be decided with the specific pro visions in the enactment and in the light of the scheme of the Act, particularly in this case, Sections 35, 35-B, 35-EE, 35-G and 35-H of the unamended Central Excise Act; it would not be possible to hold that in spite of the abovementioned statutory provisions, the High Court is free to entertain a reference applicati on even after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days. 32. As pointed out earlier, the language used in Sections 35, 35-B, 35-EE, 35-G and 35-H makes the position clear that an appeal and reference to the High Court should be made within 180 days only from the date of communication of the decis ion or order. In other words, the language used in other provisions makes the po sition clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days whi ch is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal. In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescri bed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no power to condo ne the delay after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days. 33. Even otherwise, for filing an appeal to the Commissioner, and to the Appella te Tribunal as well as revision to the Central Government, the legislature has p rovided 60 days and 90 days respectively, on the other hand, for filing an appea l and reference to the High Court larger period of 180 days has been provided wi th to enable the Commissioner and the other party to avail the same. We are of t he view that the legislature provided sufficient time, namely, 180 days for fili ng reference to the High Court which is more than the period prescribed for an a ppeal and revision. 36. The scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 supports the conclusion that the time-limit prescribed under Section 35-H(1) to make a reference to the High Cour t is absolute and unextendable by a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is well-settled law that it is the duty of the court to respect the legislat ive intent and by giving liberal interpretation, limitation cannot be extended b y invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (cid:29) 28. As noted above, the time limit of 30 days extendable by another 60 days is to commence from the date of making the declaration by the Foreigners Tribuna l, which in the instant case are dated 12.11.2002 and 20.8.2002. If the said tim e limit is not strictly adhered to, there might be false pleas, as in the instan t case, seeking extension of the same giving rise to unnecessary litigations wit h the eventual result of no finality to the matter. While considering the issue, three things will have to be borne in mind. Firstly, the time limit prescribed for the declaration expressing wish not to be governed by the provisions of Sub- Sections 3, 4 and 5, which is 60 days ; Secondly, the requirement to register wi thin 30 days extendable by another 60 days with the Registering Authority from t he date of the declaration made by the Foreigners Tribunal and thirdly, the simu ltaneous action on the part of the authority to delete the name of the person co ncerned from the voter list from the date of the declaration made which will rem ain in force for 10(ten) years. 29. It can also be argued that a declared foreigner within the stream of 196 6-71 by not registering himself within the stipulated period of time has opted f or not to be governed by Sub-sections 3, 4 and 5 of Section 6A of the Citizenshi p Act, 1955, irrespective of whether any declaration has been made or not within the stipulated period of 60 days. The fact that the registration and deletion o f name from the voter list are to go side by side and simultaneously, also requi re the declared foreigner to register his name with the registering authority wi thin the stipulated period of time. Failure to do so, which can even be delibera te, as in the instant case would lead to a situation in which the concerned fore igner would continue to cast his votes as there may not be the simultaneous acti on of deletion of his name from the voter list upon registration or even otherwi se. 30. Considering the facts involved in this case, the aforesaid issue need no t detain us to answer the present proceeding. As noted above, both the writ peti tions are based on false statements. Inspite of obtaining the order dated 28.9.2 004 by the petitioners in WP(C) 7283/2004 granting them two months’ further time to register themselves, they did not do so and once again have filed the presen t writ petition praying for the same order. A frivolous plea of not being aware of the said order for long 5(five) years has been raised without stating anythin g about their own duty of getting themselves registered. It was the petitioners who had filed the writ petition and obtained the order. It does not lie on their mouth to say that they were not aware of the same. The issue being that of citi zenship and considering the fact that large number of foreigners have infiltrate d into Assam, such a plea cannot be accepted. A strict interpretation and applic ation of the citizenship law is required to be adopted. 31. In so far as the other writ petition being WP(C) 1982/2009 is concerned, in this case also the petitioners have also taken recourse to falsehood with th e statement that the review petition filed by them was not pressed in absence of any review provision. But the fact of the matter is that after filing the revie w petition the petitioners remained absent without any steps and accordingly the review petition had to be dismissed. There is also no explanation as to the cau se of delay in approaching this Court after the final order was passed on 20.8.2 002. The order rejecting the review petition is also not under challenge. The re view petition was also filed beyond the period of limitation. Even if it is held that the review petition was maintainable, the petitioners have also failed to project any procedural defects requiring review of the declaration made on 20.8. 2002. Coupled with this, it is also well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necess ary implication. However, this aspect of the matter also need not detain us in v iew of the facts involved in this case, about which discussions have been made a bove. 32. The petitioners having failed to register themselves with the Registerin g Authority within the stipulated period of time without any reasonable excuse a nd inspite of the opportunity granted by this Court way back in 2004 and also ha ving taken recourse to falsehood, are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, b oth the writ petitioners are dismissed directing the respondents, more particula rly, the Superintendent of Police (B) Nagaon to take them into custody and detai n them in detention camp till such time they are deported to the country of thei r origin. Be it stated here that while the petitioners involved in WP(C) 1980/20 09 were the ordinary resident of Village - Amalsi, PS- Jakiganj in the district of Shyllet, the petitioners involved in other writ petition being WP(C) 1982/200 9 were the ordinary resident of Village- Balijan, PS- Kulaura in the district of Shyllet in Bangladesh, as could be gathered from the respective files / records received from the Tribunal. 33. The petitioners having not registered themselves with the Registering au thority within the stipulated period of time and inspite of the extending period beyond the said stipulated period have made them liable for deportation to Bang ladesh. They themselves have waived their right to become Indian citizens on ful fillment of the requirement of the aforesaid provisions of 1955 Act, which this Court is not empowered to serve. The petitioners being of 1966-71 stream were en titled to certain rights which they have chosen not to availed of. They having f louted the provisions of the Citizenship Act are not entitled to any relief. The y are not entitled to revive their extinguished right at their suit will. The qu estion being of citizenship of a country, cannot be viewed lightly and the law w ill have to be applied strictly and vigorously. 34. Observation and directions : Before parting with the case records of both the cases, it would be most appropriate to place on record my observation and directions which I deem appro priate having regard to the gravity of the situation arising out of infiltration from across the border (Bangladesh), which needless to say is continuous and un abated, seriously causing threat to the demographic pattern of the State and the rights and aspirations of the indigenous people of Assam, about which detail di scussions have been made by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal-I Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920 and Sarbananda Sonowal-II Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 1 SCC 174. 35. Having noticed the aforesaid fact of non-registration and non-deletion of the petitioner’s names’ from the voter list for all these years even after de clarations made by the Tribunal declaring the petitioners to be foreigners withi n the stream of 1966-71 requiring them to register themselves with the Registeri ng authority within 30 days, extendable by another 60 days, directions were issu ed to both the State and the Union Govt. to clarify their stand in the matter. D irection was also issued to clarify as to who was responsible for non-deletion o f the names of the petitioners’ from the electoral roles pursuant to the declara tion made by the Tribunal. In response to such direction, both the Govt. have filed affidavits ref 36. erring to the provisions of law holding the field , about which detailed discuss ions have been made above, without dealing with the question as to why the name of the petitioners’ could not be deleted from the voter lists for all these year s. As noted above, it is only because of the intervention of this Court and dire ction issued, the State Govt. deleted their names from the electoral rolls but n ot before the declared foreigners had cast their votes in all the elections whic h were held during the period from 2002 to 2009, be it Parliamentary, Assembly o r Panchayat. This is a matter of serious concern and cannot be viewed lightly. T he State Govt. has violated the provisions of the Constitution and the Citizensh ip Act in allowing non-citizens to cast their votes in the elections held during the period from 2002-2009. It gives an impression that there is a design to ext end protective hands to the foreigners. 37. Directions : In view of the aforesaid revelation made from the instant proceeding, I feel it appropriate to issue the following directions :- 1. Disciplinary action should be initiated against the Officer(s) because o f whose inaction the names of the petitioners were not deleted immediately after the declarations made on 12.11.2002 and 20.8.2002. The State Government shall keep track of all the proceedings before the 2. Tribunal and depending upon the declaration made in the said proceedings, immedi ate action should be taken to delete the names of the declared foreigners from t he electoral rolls. Those who are declared to be foreigners of post 25.3.1971 sh ould be immediately taken into custody and keep in detention camp till they are deported to the country of their origin. 3. As the experience of this Court goes and admitted by the State Governmen t in its white paper published on foreigners’ issue, the declared foreigners oft en do the act of vanishing. The State Government cannot have any excuse on that count and will have to ensure their detention and deportation. If need be, the p roceedees should be kept in detention camp till finalization of the proceedings , otherwise the jurisdictional Police Station and the SP(B) of the district must be made responsible and directed to ensure the presence of such suspected forei gners during the proceedings and their immediate detention after declaration as post 25.3.1971 foreigners. 4. If the declared foreigners of 1966-71 stream do not register their names with the Registering authority within the stipulated period of time, they shoul d be taken into custody for their deportation to the country or origin, apart fr om the action directed in direction No.2. 38. costs. Both the writ petitions are dismissed, without however, any order as to 39. List after one month for furnishing report by the respondents, more part icularly, the SP(B), Nagaon and Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon in respect of the di rections contained in paragraph 32 of this judgement. 40. Let copies of this judgement be sent to SP(B), Nagaon and the Union Govt . in the Ministry of Home and so also to the State Government in the Home Depart ment for their necessary follow up action in terms of this judgement and order.