Judgment · High Court

#2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner a s well as Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. I have also peru sed the records FT Kamrup (M) Case No. 349/07 by which the Foreigners Tribunal, Karmrup (M) has declared the petitioner an illegal Bangladeshi national entering into Assam after 25.03.71. As usual, the order is ex parte as the petitioner d id not respond to the proceeding.

#3. The particular reference was made under the IMDT Act and the same was r egistered and numbered as IMDT Case No. 274/04. Later on the same was registered as FT case No. 131/06 after scrapping of the IMDT Act by the Apex Court. As reg ards the ex parte order passed by the Tribunal the explanation furnished by the petitioner in paragraph-3 of the writ petition is that although on receipt of th e notice on 31.08.07 he duly appeared before the Tribunal on 01.11.07, but there after he could not appear as he had left Guwahati to his native place Jalpaiguri , West Bengal. Coming back from West Bengal, he enquired the matter in the Tribu nal and came to know that the impugned ex parte order was passed on 31.12.07.

#4. In support of the Indian citizenship, the petitioner has placed reliance on certain documents. As per the own admission of the petitioner he is aged a bout 38 years. If that be so, his name must have been included in various voter lists pertaining to different elections, but the petitioner has failed to produc e even a single voter list containing his name. The school certificate produced by the petitioner in support of his Indian citizenship cannot establish his citi zenship in absence of proving the said document by following due procedure. The petitioner got the best opportunity to establish his Indian citizenship by disch arging his burden of proof by way of answering the reference as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1996, but instead after the initial appearance he declined to appear and now has taken all sorts of pleas untenable in law. C onsidering the alarming situation in Assam with influx of thousands of such Bang ladeshi nationals and when the matter is required to be dealt with in war footin g with iron hands, such untenable pleas of the foreign nationals cannot be given indulgence to. The photo copies of the documents annexed to the writ petition are not at all reliable and admissible more so, when such documents can always b e forged and obtained with the helping hands all around.

#5. Considering the matter in its entirety and having regard to the serious observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (I) report ed in AIR 2005 SC 2920 and Sarbananda Sonowal (II) reported in (2007) 1 SCC 174, I am not inclined to accept the untenable pleas of the petitioner and accordin gly the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently the Superintendent of Police, K amrup (M) shall immediately take the petitioner into custody and detain him til l such time he is deported to Bangladesh.

#6. perintendent of Police, Kamrup (M). List the matter on 14.09.2009 for furnishing compliance report by the Su

#7. Let the copies of the this judgment and order be sent to Union of India and the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup (M) immediately. Another copy may also be furnished to Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for her nec essary follow up action.

#8. t and order. Let the LCR be sent down to the Tribunal annexing a copy of this judgmen