AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is quite befuddling as the same has been styled as pro bono action. The allegations in wholesome is targeted against one Prasanta Nath Chowdhury, the respondent No.7. It has been alleged that the respondent No.7 is a foreign national having his origin in Bangladesh. Despite that, he has been encroaching a substantial amount of land after filling up a pond. According to the petitioner, from various sources including the newspaper reports, he has come to know the said fact.
The petitioner has asserted that the respondent No.7 was born in 1947 in the erstwhile East Pakistan and he was living there. Somehow, he managed to enter his name in the Register of Ordinary Residents (the ROR in short) in Ward No.5, Sl. No.93 of Block No.1 under Teliamura Municipal Council by manipulating the process. The respondent No.7 has been enjoying the benefits of various programmes including MGNREGA etc. When one Rana Pratap Bhowmik filed a complaint to the Lokayukta, Tripura, it revealed in that proceeding that the ROR No.1317 dated 27.01.2006 of the Ward No.5, Teliamura Municipal Council had been cancelled by the Memorandum dated 24.07.2014, Annexure-5 to this writ petition. That Rana Pratap Bhowmik approached the various authorities for discontinuation of the benefits that the respondent No.7 has been enjoying including cancellation of his ration card. The petitioner has asserted as under: "Here it is pertinent to mention that respondent No.7, by an affidavit on 4.6.1977, categorically stated that he has come from Pakistan, presently Bangladesh on 6th July, 1969 and lives in Teliamura and claims to be an Indian National by virtue of Citizenship Certificate issued on 19.10.1968, which is a fake one."
Not only the respondent No.7, according to the petitioner his son and other family members are enjoying the similar benefits though they are not entitled as they are the foreign nationals. Since the benefits are not withdrawn, this has been made the subject matter of the writ petition under the garb of Public Interest Litigation.
The official respondents by filing their reply have stated that the whole dispute has been engineered by one Rana Pratap Bhowmik who happens to be a close relation of the respondent No.7. They have admitted that Rana Pratap Bhowmik had approached the various authorities for withdrawing the benefits and cancelling the records showing the respondent No.7 as the Indian national. As such, the respondents instituted inquiry to dispel the cloud created by said Rana Pratap Bhowmik. They have asserted in Para-6 (h) as under:
"It is further stated that after searching of office records in the office of the SDM, Khowai, no citizenship certificate NO.959(P)/R-16, dated 19.10.1968 appears to have been issued in favour of Sri Prasanta Nath Chowdhury. On the other hand, the name of Sri Prasanta Nath Chowdhury, S/O Parameswar Nath Chowdhury is enrolled as an elector at Sl. No.106 of the electoral roll of 1971 under 39-Teliamura Assembly Constituency and a person whose name is found enrolled electoral roll cannot be treated as a foreigner. Hence, his enrollment as an elector in 1971 Electoral list indicates that Sri Prasanta Nath Chowdhury is an Indian National."
It has been further asserted in Para-2(i) as under:
"From enquiry conducted by the SDM, Teliamura, it came to light that Sri Prasanta Nath Chowdhury and others did not obtain permission under section 20 of TLR & LR Act, 1960 before filling up of pond. Hence, proceeding has been started under section 20 TLR & LR Act, 1960 for illegal diversion of land without prior permission of the authority."
The official respondents No.1-5 have categorically stated that since the respondent No.7''s name has been found at Sl. No.106 of the Electoral Roll of 1971 under 39 Teliamura Assembly Constituency, he cannot be treated as foreign national and he is entitled to the benefits admissible to any Indian citizen.
The respondent No.7 has also filed a reply contradicting the statements made by the petitioner. However, the petitioner by filing a rejoinder has asserted that since the said Citizenship Certificate dated 19.10.1960 was not found in the official records, it must be treated as the fake citizenship certificate and due action has to be taken against the respondent No.7.
On the face of the statements made by the respondents No.1-5 that the respondent No.7''s name has been found in the Electoral Roll of 1971, this court is not inclined to direct any action against the respondent No.7. Any action without approaching the competent authority is bound to fail, inasmuch as unless it is demonstrated that the respondents No.1-5 failed to take appropriate action as prescribed, the court would be loath in exercising its jurisdiction even under a petition filed pro bono. It has surfaced that for filling up of the watery tank without taking due permission for such diversion under Section 20 of the TLR and LR Act, 1960, the action has been initiated against the petitioner and as such the said cause has become infructuous. Having observed thus, this writ petition is dismissed. However, taking a lenient view, this court would not impose any cost.