Saleha Bibi V. The Union of India and The State of Assam and The Election Commission of India and The State Coordinator NRC Assam and The Deputy Commissioner Bongaigaon and The Superintendent of Police (B) Bongaigaon

WP(C)/7695/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around Saleha Bibi, who challenged the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, declaring her a foreigner of post-1971 stream. The Tribunal's decision was based on the petitioner's inability to prove her Indian citizenship despite presenting various documents. The Gauhati High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, concurred with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the petitioner's lineage to her parents, Maijuddin Sheikh and Phelo Bewa.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801076 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Babul Islam v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 3547 of 2016], Gulbhan Begum v. Union of India [WP(C) 583/2017]
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G HAZARKIA; A KALITA; B DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: B CHOWDHURY
• Keywords: Foreigner; Foreigners tribunal; Indian Citizenship; Voter list; Post 1971 stream
• Section: F.T. Case No. BNGN/282/09

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010252072019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C) 7695/2019 1:SALEHA BIBI D/O- LATE MAIJUDDIN SK @ RAFATULLAH, W/O- FAKARUDDIN SHEIKH, R/O- VILL- LUNGIJHAR, P.S- BONGAIGAON, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS 1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON P.O- BONGAIGAON Page No.# 2/5 DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BONGAIGAON P.O- BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 18-06-2020 (P. Saikia) Heard the learned counsel Mr. B. Chowdhury, appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Hazarkia, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 4. We have also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Counsel represents respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6; Ms. B. Das, learned counsel represents respondent no. 3. 2. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the opinion dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon in F.T. Case No. BNGN/282/09. By the impugned opinion the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 3. On the basis of the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (B) Bongaigaon, the Tribunal issued Notice to the petitioner asking her to prove her Indian Citizenship. She appeared before the Tribunal and filed the written statement. 4. In the written statement the petitioner has taken the plea that she is an Indian citizen by birth. She stated that she was born to Maijuddin Sheikh @ Rafatullah (since deceased), son of Late Jamir Sheikh and Phelo Bewa. The petitioner disclosed that the names of her Page No.# 3/5 parents appeared in the voter list of 1966. According to the petitioner her name appeared in the voter list of 1977 for the first time. 5. The petitioner also filed an additional written statement. By filing this written statement, the petitioner introduced some new documents. 6. The documents relied upon by the petitioner in order to establish her Indian citizenship are as follows: i. Exhibit-A – Translated copy of 1966 voter list containing the names of Phelo Bewa and Abedali; ii. Exhibit-B – Certified copy of 1971 voter list containing the names of Phelo Bewa and Abedali; iii. Exhibit-C – Voter list of 1997 containing the names of the petitioner, her husband, her son and her daughter-in-law; iv. Exhibit-D – Voter list of 1997 containing the names of the petitioner, her husband, her son and her daughter-in-law; v. Exhibit-E – Voter list of 1997 containing the names of the petitioner, her husband, her son and her daughter-in-law; vi. Exhibit-F – Translated copies of Electoral Roll of 1997, 2006, 2011 and 2017 containing the names of the petitioner, her husband, her son and her daughter-in-law; vii. Exhibit-G – The EPIC; viii. Exhibit-H – The Pan Card of the petitioner. ix. Exhibit-I – The marriage certificate of the petitioner issued by the Kazi. Page No.# 4/5 x. Exhibit-J – The certified copy of voter list of 1954 containing the names of Maijuddin and Phelo Bibi. 7. Apart from those documents which were introduced at the time of adducing evidence, the petitioner also produced three other documents. These documents are – (a) Annexure-I is the NRC details of Maizuddin Sheikh (b) Annexure-II is the computer generated SECE and Annexure-III is the certificate of the Secretary of Nowapara Gaon Panchayat. 8. The petitioner claimed that Maijuddin and Phelo Bewa are her parents and Late Jamir Ali was her paternal grand-father. There is no controversy on this point. 9. The only controversy in this matter is what is the documentary evidence to establish the linkage of the petitioner with Maizuddin and Phelo Bewa. In order to establish her linkage with her parents, the petitioner introduced Ext-I, a marriage certificate issued by a Kazi and the Annexure-III, the certificate of the Gaon Panchayat. The Kazi and the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat were not examined in order to prove these two documents. 10. Apart from these two documents, the petitioner also produced one Pan Card showing her to be the daughter of Maijuddin Shiekh. This Court in Babul Islam v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 3547 of 2016] has already held that an Income Tax Pan Card cannot be straightway accepted as evidence, because its genuineness must be proved by the evidence of Income Tax Authority. No such evidence was adduced in the case in hand. 11. Prior to Babul Islam (supra) this Court in Gulbhan Begum v. Union of India [WP(C) 583/2017] held a similar view holding that it must be proved that the petitioner had applied for a Pan card and the Income Tax Department had issued such a Pan Card to the applicant. Therefore the Pan Card i.e. Ext-H cannot be accepted for establishing the linkage between the petitioner and her father. 12. The net result of all these is that the petitioner simply failed to establish her linkage with her parents by adducing evidence. We are in agreement that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding. 13. As a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we excise supervisory power. We find that there is no perversity in the opinion of the Tribunal. Page No.# 5/5 We do not find merit in this writ petition. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. 15. The case record shall be returned forthwith. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant "