Soidur Rahman @ Sahidur Rahman vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3117 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010151392017




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/7517/2017

            SOIDUR RAHMAN @ SAHIDUR RAHMAN
            S/O- LT SHAHAR ALI SK @ SHAHAR ALI @ SHAHAR VILL- TALLI PART-I
            P.S.-GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS.
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
            UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

            2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             HOME DEPARTMENT
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI -6.

            3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             OF DHUBRI DISTRICT
            AT DHUBRI
             P.O.
             P.S. and DIST. DHUBRI
            ASSAM

            4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER
             OF DHUBRI DISRICT
            AT DHUBRI
             P.O.
             P.S. and DIST. DHUBRI
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.M HUSSAIN
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/2

Advocate for the Respondent :

                                          BEFORE
                          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
                           HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

                                            ORDER

Date : 25.11.2017

(N. Kotiswar Singh, J.)

Heard Mr. K. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, FT.

2. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the records would reveal that the concerned enquiring authority had recommended dropping of the proceeding as clearly reflected in the report of the LVO. However, contrary to such a recommendation, the matter was still referred to the Tribunal, which is not permissible in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench in State of Assam and another Vs. Moslem Mondal, (2013) 1 GLT 809, where it has been clearly mentioned that the reference before a Foreigners Tribunal cannot be mechanical and, if it is so, it cannot be sustained in law.

3. Mr. Payeng, learned counsel for the State, however, seeks two weeks time to obtain certain clarification and also prays that he may be allowed to retain the original records received from the Tribunal.

4. The prayer is allowed.

5. The matter be listed again on 15.12.2021.

6. Interim order, passed on 06.12.2017, shall continue.

                                   JUDGE                        JUDGE




Comparing Assistant