The Gauhati High Court In the case Bharati Rabidas v. The Union of India & 5 Ors observed and has quashed and has set aside of Foreigners Tribunal which declared the citizen of India as foreign citizen, on the ground that the verification report of the authorities was being incomplete and evidence of the father of the petitioner, who has deposed that the petitioner being his daughter, being remained uncontroverted.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua and Justice Robin Phukan in the case observed while setting aside the order of Tribunal that the verification report itself is incomplete which leads to any conclusion that the petitioner being a person who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971 and further that the evidence of Ram Proshad Rabidas who could prove the citizenship of him and had deposed that the petitioner is his daughter remained uncontroverted, the court is of the view that the reference made against the petitioner itself and the same would be untenable in law.
The petitioner in the plea referred to Foreigners Tribunal, Dhubri for an opinion as to whether she being a person who entered the State of Assam from the specified territory after 25.03.1971.
However, the Tribunal vide order dated 18.09.2018, wherein giving an opinion that the petitioner is a foreign citizen who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971.
The petitioner aggrieved with the impugned order of the Tribunal instituted the writ petition.
It has been observed by the court that the petitioner in the plea relied upon the Voters’ List of 1966 Mouza Balrampur district Kooch Behar in the State of West Bengal wherein at the name of Rabidas Ramprasad, mentioned the name of son of Sahadeb.
Further, the court observed that Rabidas Ramprasad deposed before the tribunal that petitioner is his daughter from his first wife and had been born and has brought up in Coochbehar district in West Bengal.
It has also been noted by the court that in cross-examination Rabidas Ramprasad was not being confronted with any question or any suggestion that petitioner is not his daughter.
Further, it has been observed by the court that the verification report of the authorities was incomplete as no information was recorded in the report which might indicate the reason as to why the authorities thought that the petitioner is a person who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971. It has also been noted by the court that in the verification report the column provided for place of birth was not filled up by the authorities.
Accordingly, court set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the court has declared the petitioner as a citizen of India.
