High Court
Case Details
WA 92/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Katakey, J.
Legal Reasoning
[7] A full Bench of this Court in Moslem Mondal (supra) has held tha t though the Citizenship Act, 1956 as well as the Rules, 2009 provides the initi al time limit for filing application for registration, i.e. 1(one) month, which is extendable by another 60(sixty) days by the registering authority, such time limit can be extended by the registering authority only under very exceptional c ircumstances preventing the applicant from filing the application due to reasons beyond his control. [8] The delay in making the application beyond 60(sixty) days from t he date of the opinion rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal and in case of challe nging the same before the higher forum, from the date of decision by the higher forum, can be condoned by extending the period by the registering authority and register the names provided exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. Mere ma king a self serving statement that the delay was occurred because of non receipt of the communication would not constitute very exceptional circumstances preven ting the applicants from filing the application. In the instant case, the appellants except making the self servi [9] ng statement that the communication issued by the learned counsel intimating the decision rendered by a single Bench of this Court vide order dated 28th Septemb er, 2004 passed in WP(C) No.7283/2004 did not reach them, there is no other mate rials placed on record. The appellants having challenged the Tribunal’s order i n a writ proceeding filed in the year 2004, which concerns the appellants’ citiz enship right, must be vigilant. It appears that the appellants admittedly, as p er their own saying, never enquired about the result of WP(C) No.7283/2004, prio r to 2009, though the same was disposed of on 28th September, 2004 granting libe rty to the appellants to register their names within 2(two) months thereafter. The appellants thereafter, filed WP(C) No.1980/2009 stating the grounds for non registration, as noticed above, which in any stress of imagination, cannot be ac cepted as very exceptional circumstances preventing registration. [10]
Arguments
Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. J. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. The appellants, by the present appeal, have challenged the judgm [2] ent and order dated 19th February, 2013 passed by a single Bench of this Court i n WP(C) No.1980/2009 dismissing the writ petition filed by them praying for dire cting the Foreigners Registration Officer, Nagaon to register their names, in vi ew of the order dated 12th November, 2002 passed by the learned Member, Foreigne rs Tribunal, Nagaon in F.T. Case No.4600/1988, whereby and whereunder the appell ants were held to be foreigners coming to Assam (India) from the specified terri tory between 1st January, 1966 to and 25th March, 1971. A proceeding being F.T. Case No.4600/1988 was initiated against [3] the appellants before the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon, alleging that the appella nts are foreigners coming to Assam (India) from the specified territory between 1st January, 1966 and 25th March, 1971, without any valid documents. The appell ants though initially appeared before the Tribunal and prayed for time to file w ritten statement, later on, however, they have chosen not to contest the said pr oceeding and did not take any steps. Consequently the said proceeding proceeded ex-parte against the appellants. The Tribunal vide order dated 12th November, 2002 opined that the appellants are foreigners coming to India from the specifie d territory between 1st January, 1966 and 25th March, 1971 and directed registra tion of their names in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 19 55 and the Rules framed thereunder. [4] The appellants had challenged the said order passed by the learn ed Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon in WP(C) No.7283/2004, which writ petitio n was disposed of on 28th September, 2004, granting liberty to the appellants to get their names registered with the Foreigners Registration Officer, Nagaon, wi thin 2(two) months from the date of passing of the said order by a single Bench of this Court. The appellants despite the order passed, did not register their names and instead in the year 2009 filed WP(C) No.1980/2009 praying for a direct ion to get their names registered in the Foreigners Registration Office, Nagaon, containing inter alia that though a single Bench of this Court vide order dated 28th September, 2004 passed in WP(C) No.7283/2004 allowed the appellants to get their names registered within a period of 2(two) months from the date of passin g that order, the communication issued by the learned counsel did not reach them and they came to know about the same in the year 2009, when they enquired about the fate of the earlier writ petition filed in the High Court. According to th e appellants, they then applied for the certified copy on 24th April, 2009 and t hereafter, on 18th May, 2009 filed the writ petition being WP(C) No.1980/2009. [5] Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since the appellants are daily wage earners and travel from place to place in search of job, the communication issued by the learned counsel engaged in WP( C) No.7283/04 did not reach them, which was the reason for not getting their nam es registered, though directed vide order dated 28th September, 2004 passed in t he said writ proceeding. It has also been submitted that since the appellants c ould demonstrate good and sufficient reason for not getting their names register ed, the learned single Judge ought not to have refused to allow the appellants t o register their names. Referring to the communication dated 1st October, 2012 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Political (B) Departme nt to the Deputy Secretary (NE), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, it has also been submitted that even if the persons, who are detected to be fore igners coming to Assam (India) from the specified territory between 1st January, 1966 and 25th March, 1971 do not register their names, as required under the pr ovisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Rules framed thereunder, they cann ot be deported from India and hence, there is no reason as to why the appellants should not be allowed to register their names with the Foreigners Registration Office, Nagaon. [6] Per contra, Mr. Handique, learned State counsel as well as Mr. B hagabati, learned Central Government counsel appearing for the respondents submi t that despite the opportunity given by a single Bench of this Court vide order dated 28th September, 2004 passed in WP(C) No.7283/2004, the appellants having n ot registered their names, as required under the provisions of the Citizenship A ct and the Rules framed thereunder, they are liable to be deported, in view of a full Bench decision of this Court in State of Assam & Ors. -Vs- Moslem Mondal & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 809. It has also been submitted that the app ellants are apparently negligent and even did not bother to enquire about the wr it petition being WP(C) No.7283/2004 filed by them, more so, when the question o f Citizenship of the appellants was involved. The learned counsel further submi ts that the submissions made by the appellants that the communication issued by the learned counsel engaged in WP(C) No.7283/2004 did not reach the appellants a nd they had no knowledge about the outcome of the said writ petition, cannot be accepted, as except making such self serving statement, nothing more could be de monstrated by the appellants. The learned counsel, therefore, submit that the l earned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition being WP(C) No.1980/ 2009 refusing to allow the prayer for registration of the appellants’ name under the provisions of the Citizenship Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Decision
In view of the above, we do not find any merit to admit the appe al and hence, the appeal stands dismissed.