Papu Roy vs Union Of India And 5 Ors

Heard Mr. H. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for respondent

No.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned Special Counsel, FT appearing for respondent Nos. 2-4; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for respondent

No.5 and Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC for respondent No.6.

Considering the nature of the case, the present petition is disposed of at this stage.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sri Papu Roy, who is the son of one Late Ranjeet Roy, resident of village Silghat Gaon, P.O

and P.S. Kaliabor, District-Nagaon, Assam, against the ex-parte order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 8th,

Nagaon, Assam in F.T.(K) Case No.1056/2015 [Corresponding to S.P. (Ref)IMDT Case No.1132/2004 [corresponding to F.T. Old Case No.

1131/2011] declaring the aforesaid Late Ranjeet Roy as a foreigner.

The said ex-parte order mentions that the proceeding was initiated in terms of a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon

vide S.P. (Ref) IMDT Case No.1132/2004 against the petitioner’s father, Ranjeet Roy and since the petitioner’s father Ranjeet Roy did not

appear before the Tribunal, it was proceeded ex-parte by holding that the proceedee failed to discharge his burden of proving his case as required

under Section 9 of Foreigners Act, 1946 and passed the ex-parte order declaring petitioner’s father Ranjeet Roy as a foreigner/illegal migrant of

post 25.03.1971 stream under Section 2(a) of Foreigners Act, 1946.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner nor his late father was aware of the said proceeding before the Tribunal.

Further, the petitioner’s father Ranjeet Roy expired on 15.01.2007 and as such, the petitioner’s father could not have appeared before the

Tribunal when such an order was passed on 10.10.2019 as he was not alive. It has been submitted that in fact, any proceeding initiated against his

father, Ranjeet Roy would have abated on his death on 15.01.2007 and accordingly, it has been submitted that the ex-parte order dated 10.10.2019

would be null and void as far as the petitioner’s father is concerned. However, because of the fact that petitioner’s father had been declared

as a foreigner, it will have serious and adverse implications to the descendants of the said Ranjeet Roy including the petitioner as regards Indian

citizenship.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

The fact that the petitioner’s father, Ranjeet Roy expired on 15.01.2007 is supported by the Certificate of Death issued by the Office of the

Directorate of health Services on 07.02.2007. In the Certificate of Death, a copy of which is annexed to the petition, the name of the deceased is

recorded as Late Ranjit Roy, Sex-male and the date of death is recorded as 15.1.07 with the place of death as Silghat, with Registration No. 22/07 and

the date of registration as 1.2.07. The name of the father of the deceased has been recorded as Lt. Ramoni Roy.

The proceedee in the impugned case was Ranjeet Roy, S/o-Lt. Ramani Roy of Village Silghat Gaon.

We are satisfied with the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s father Ranjeet Roy having died on 15.01.2007 could not have been

proceeded in the aforesaid case which was registered in the year 2011 under FT(K) Case No. 1056/2015 [Corresponding to SP (Ref.) IMDT Case

No. 1132/2004] [Corresponding to F.T. Old Case No. 1131/2011], though the reference was made in the year 2004. There could not have been any

proceeding against a dead person.

Since the aforesaid Ranjeet Roy had died on 15.01.2007, no proceeding could have been initiated against the aforesaid late Ranjeet Roy in the

Foreigners Tribunal in the year 2011 or 2015, as the case may be.

Accordingly, the impugned ex-parte order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 8th Nagaon in FT(K) Case No.

1056/2015 [Corresponding S.P. (Ref.) IMDT Case No.1132/2004] [Corresponding to F.T. Old Case No. 1131/2011] is set aside.

However, we also make it clear that if there be any question about the citizenship of the petitioner or any of the descendants of the aforesaid Ranjeet

Roy, it is left to the wisdom of the authorities to consider the same in accordance with law.

With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands allowed.