WP(C) 1959/2011 - Gauhati High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

thereafter notice was again issued on 4.9.2009. On4.9.2009, the petitioner’s engaged counsel appearedand filed petition seeking adjournment to file WrittenStatement and affidavit. Accordingly, the prayer wasallowed fixing the matter on 23.10.2009.7. The order sheet reveals that the petitionermerrily kept on taking time by filling adjournmentpetitions enabling him to file Written Statement andaffidavit. The dates on which such prayer was madeare 23.10.2009, 15.12.2009, 27.1.2010, 4.3.2010,5.4.2010, 29.5.2010 and 21.7.2010. On 21.7.2010, theTribunal made it clear in its order that there wouldbe no further chance for filling Written Statement.8. On 31.8.2010 i.e. the next date fixed, thepetitioner again remained absent and filed petitionfor adjournment enabling him to file WrittenStatement. Although, as per the earlier order dated21.7.2010, the petitioner was not entitled to anyfurther adjournment but the learned Tribunal grantedhim another chance fixing the matter on 13.9.2010.On 13.9.2010 also, the petitioner repeated the samestory by filing an application seeking adjournment.Situated thus, the engaged counsel had no otheroption than to withdraw from the case. Thereafterthe Tribunal passed the impugned judgement andorder dated 4.10.2010 with the clear declaration thatWP(C) 1959 of 2011 Page 4 of 7
the petitioner is an illegal Bangladeshi migrant andliable to be deported from Assam.9. In the impugned judgement and order, theaforesaid aspect of the matter has been elaboratelydiscussed. As per the provisions of the Foreigner’sAct, the burden lies on the foreigner to establish thathe is an Indian citizen. In the instant case, inspite ofgranting several opportunities, the petitioner did notdischarge the said burden and now has approachedthis Court by filling the instant writ petition towardsassailing the impugned judgement and order with theaforementioned contradictory documents.10. In the writ petition, there is no explanation asto why the petitioner all along remained absent in allthe dates fixed by the Tribunal. Only ground urged isthat the petitioner was endeavouring to obtaindocuments. In this connection, he has enclosedAnnexure C/2 dated 17.12.2009 so as to contend thatthe documents were sought for from the authority byfilling the application and Annexure-C/2 is the tokenof receipt of the said application on 17.12.2009. Onperusal of Annexure-C/2 document, it is seen that thename of the applicant is one Nazir Uddin Ahmed andnot the petitioner. The purpose for which theapplication was filed was indicated as “Certifiedcopy of electoral roll”, however, which electoralroll was prayed for, there was no indication.WP(C) 1959 of 2011 Page 5 of 7
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(THE HIGH
Page 6 and 7: 11. merely showing the aforesaid re

WP(C) 1959/2011 - Gauhati High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?