20191129 gauhati hc order in 29 gorkha ft cases wpc 8490 18

1. Page No.# 1/52
GAHC010271842018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 8490/2018
1:INDIRA NEWAR
W/O- LT CHABID PRADHAN @ SABIT NEWAR, VILL- ROWMARI, P.S.
MAZBAT, DIST- UDALGURI
VERSUS
1:UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI-1
2:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-1
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
MINISTRY OF HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NRC
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GHY-5
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
UDALGURI
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
UDALGUR

2. Page No.# 2/52
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M P SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 6168/2016
1:SURAMANI OZA
S/O LT. RAGHUNATH OZA
R/O VILL. NO.1 JAISIDHI
P.S. SOOTEA
DIST- BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN-784182
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BISWANATH
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI

3. Page No.# 3/52
ASSAM
PIN-784176
5:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
6:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-1
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.N DAIMARI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA
ASSAM
Linked Case : WP(C) 4272/2016
1:THAGENDRA BOJGAI
S/O- LT. PADMALAL BOJGAI
PERMANENT R/O VILL.- PANPUR
PURANIBHETI
P.O. and P.S.- JAMUGURI
DIST.- SONITPUR
ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS
REP. BY COMMISSIONER and SECY.
HOME AFFAIRS
GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME POLITICAL DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY- 6.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B
SONITPUR
TEZPUR

4. Page No.# 4/52
ASSAM.
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K K SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 4317/2016
1:SMTI BIMALA DEVI
W/O SRI PREM PRASAD UPADHYAY R/O VILL - NO. 1
JAISIDHI P.S. SOOTEA DIST. BISWANATH
ASSAM PIN- 784182
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DIST. BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN - 784176.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN - 784001.
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BISWANATH DIST. BISWANATH BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM PIN - 784176.
5:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRTION OFFICER
DIST. BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI

5. Page No.# 5/52
ASSAM PIN -784176.
6:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS
NEW DELHI-110001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P N SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC
C.G.C.
Linked Case : WP(C) 959/2017
1:SMT. BEDA MAYA DEVI
W/O SRI SIBA PRASAD PARAJULI
R/O NO.2
JAISIDHI
P.S. SOOTEA
DIST- BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN-784182
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001

6. Page No.# 6/52
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BISWANATH
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
5:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
6:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-1
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A R TAHBILDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 4983/2018
1:SMT. TARA DEVI
D/O- LT DHAN BAHADUR CHETRY
W/O- SRI SANKAR CHETRY
R/O- VILL- AMGURI GAON
P.O. BERIGAON
P.S. BAPATHAR
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM

7. Page No.# 7/52
PIN- 785702
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
GOLAGHAT
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785702
4:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER
GOLAGHAT LAC
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785702
5:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-1
6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC
PO AND PS BHANGAGARH
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
GHY-5
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P N SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC
F.T
Linked Case : WP(C) 7520/2018
1:KARNA BAHADUR DARJEE @ KARNA LABUR
S/O. LT. HARKA BAHADUR LABUR @ DARJEE
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL. NO.1
NALBARI
P.O. SOOTEA
PIN-784175
P.S. SOOTEA
DIST. BISWANATH
ASSAM
PERMANENT R/O. TEWARIPAL
MOUZAAND P.S. SOOTEA
DIST. BISWANATH
ASSAM.

8. Page No.# 8/52
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DIST. BISWANATH
ASSAM-784176.
4:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B)
BISWANATH
DIST. BISWANATH
ASSAM-784176.
5:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
G.S. ROAD
LACHIT NAGAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM-781003.
6:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BORUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 5641/2018
1:AMBIKA DEVI @ AMBIKA DEVI DIMAL
WIFE OF DILLIRAM DULAL
DAUGHTER OF LATE GANGADHAR DIMAL @ GANGADHAR @ GODADAR
VILL. SHYAMJULI
P.S. SILAPATHAR
DIST. DHEMAJI

9. Page No.# 9/52
ASSAM
PIN-
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
SHASTRI BHAWAN
TILOK MARG
NEW DELHI-1.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN ASOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI. PIN-
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHEMAJI
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN-
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
DHEMAJI
DIST. DHEMAJI
ASSAM. PIN-
6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 871005
PIN- 784001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 2970/2017

10. Page No.# 10/52
1:TANKA UPADHYAY @ TANKA PRASAD
S/O- SRI MAHESWAR UPADHYAY
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL NO.1
BORDIKARAI
P.O- RANGACHAKUA
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784001
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY
GOVT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781006
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DIST- SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784001
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784001
4:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER
DIST- SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784001
5:THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-110001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D DOLEY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

11. Page No.# 11/52
Linked Case : WP(C) 7014/2017
1:JIBAN SARMAH
S/O LT. SHYAMLAL SARMAH R/O VILL- PURANIBHETI CHENGELIMORA
P.O. PANPUR
P.S. JAMUGURI DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN - 784180.
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-1.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI -6.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
P.O. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B
SONITPUR
P.O. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.AADHIKARY
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : WP(C) 5015/2018
1:TANKA BAHADUR NEWAR
S/O. LATE SIV RAJ NEWAR
R/O. VILL. GERUA NEPALI PARA
P.O. SIMLITOLA

12. Page No.# 12/52
P.S. RANGJULI
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN 783130.
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-1.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF HOME
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
INDIA
4:STATE COORDINATOR
NRC.
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GOALPARA
ASSAM.
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
GOALPARA
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 614/2018
1:PURNA CHAPGAI
S/O. LATE SHYAMLAL CHAPGAI
R/O. VILLAGE NO. 1 JOISIDHI
P.S. SOOTEA
DIST. SONITPUR (ASSAM)
PIN-784001.

13. Page No.# 13/52
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
SONITPUR
TEZPUR-784001
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR-784001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P UPADHYAY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 5016/2018
1:PABITRI UPADHYAY@ PABITRA UPADHYAY
W/O- SRI DAMBARU UPADHYAY
R/O- VILL- MINGMANG TARAJAN
P.S- GOGAMUKH
DIST- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787057
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 06
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

14. Page No.# 14/52
DHEMAJI
DIST- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787057
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B)
DHEMAJI
DIST- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787057
4:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER
DIST- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787057
5:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI- 110001
6:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NRC
P.O AND P.S- BHANGAGARH
DIST- KAMRUP(M)
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 6232/2018
1:RAM PRAKASH PAKKREL @ RAM PRASAD UPADHYA
S/O LATE SINTAMONI UPADHYA @ DANDHIRAM PAKEREN
R.O VILLAGE SHYAMJULI
DINOW
PS SILAPATHAR
DIST DHEMAJI
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.

15. Page No.# 15/52
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS SHASTRI BHAWAN
TILOK MARG
NEW DELHI-01
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN ASOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHEMAJI
DIST DHEMAJI
ASSAM
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(BORDER)
DHEMAJI
DIST DHEMAJI
ASSAM
6:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 6875/2016
1:SMT. MITHU CHETRI
D/O. LT. NARBAHADUR CHETRI
W/O. LOK BAHADUR CHETRI
R/O. DURGA SAROVAR
P.O. and P.S. BHARALUMUKH
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN-

16. Page No.# 16/52
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
GRIHA MANTRALAYA
NEW DELHI
PIN
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.-06.
3:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE B
CITY
KAMRUP
PIN-781001.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K K SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA
ASSAMR-2-4
Linked Case : WP(C) 572/2018
1:KUSUM CHIKTAL @ KUSUM DEVI
W/O TULSI PRASAD POWREL
R/O VILL- BALIJURI
P.S. SOOTEA
PIN - 784001
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 3 ORS
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

17. Page No.# 17/52
NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR- 784001.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR- 784001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P UPADHYAY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 7153/2016
1:HEM PRASAD SARMA @ HEM PRASAD POUREL
S/O. SRI DEO NARAYAN SARMA @ SRI DEO NARAYAN POUREL
VILL. NO.2 BALIJURI
P.S. SOOTEA
P.O. RANGACHAKO
DIST. BISHWANATH CHARALI
ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:UNION OF INDIA and 2 ORS
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE COMM. and SECY.
DEPTT. OF HOME
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY.-06.
3:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE

18. Page No.# 18/52
SONITPUR
TEZPUR.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : WP(C) 7228/2018
1:BIJOY LABUR @ BIJOY DARJEE
S/O- LT HARKA BAHADUR LABUR @ DARJEE
R/O- TEWARIPAL
MOUZAAND P.S. SOOTEA
DIST- BISWANATH (ASSAM)
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL- BANGALI SILANIGAON
18TH MILE
MOUZA- BALIPARA
P.S. CHARIDUAR
P.O. 18TH MILE
PIN-
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DIST- BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN- 784176
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
BISWANATH
DIST- BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN- 784176

19. Page No.# 19/52
5:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
G.S.ROAD
LACHIT NAGAR
GHY
ASSAM
PIN- 781003
6:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BORUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 650/2018
1:GITA DEVI ALIAS GITA NEWAR
W/O. SRI PURNA BAHADUR NEWAR
R/O. VILLAGE PITHAGURI DOUL
P.S. JAMUGURIHAT
DISTRICT- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 3 ORS.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR-784001.

20. Page No.# 20/52
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR-784001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P UPADHYAY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 7934/2016
1:SMTI. NETRA MAYA CHETRI
W/O TILK BAHADUR CHETRI R/O NEPALI PARA P.S. DUDHNOI DIST.
GOLPARA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:UNION OF INDIAAND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI -06.
3:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ADMN
GOVT. OF ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GOALPARA P.O. and DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM.
5:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B
GOALPARA
P.O. and DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM.
6:ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER
GOALPARA
DIST. GOLPARA

21. Page No.# 21/52
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R DHAR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 7346/2016
1:DAL BAHADUR CHETRY
S/O LT. CHANDRA BAHADUR CHETRY
R/O VILL. NO.2
BALIJURI
P.S. SOOTEA
DIST- BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN-784182
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
5:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER

22. Page No.# 22/52
BISWANATH
BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
6:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-1
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.N DAIMARI
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 1175/2017
1:GANESH BAHADUR POWREL @ GANESH POWREL @ GANESH CHETRY @
GANESH KHARKA
S/O SRI RATNA BAHADUR POWREL R/O VILL- NADIDHAR
MUNDABASTI P.S. JAMUGURIHAT DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM PIN - 784001.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN - 781006.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR DIST.SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN - 784001.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN - 784001.
4:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER

23. Page No.# 23/52
DIST. SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN - 784001.
5:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI- 11001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A R TAHBILDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 6211/2016
1:KEDAR ADHIKARI
S/O KASHINATH ADHIKARI
R/O TEZALPATTY
P.S. SOOTEA
DIST- BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN-784182
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY.
GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANTH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001

24. Page No.# 24/52
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BISWANATH
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANTH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
5:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER
DIST- BISWANATH
BISWANTH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784176
6:THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-1
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P N SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 8413/2018
1:PREMA @ PROMA LIMBU
W/O- PRODIP LIMBU
D/O- LT PURNA KANTA LIMBU @ PURNAKANTA BAHADUR LIMBU
R/O- VILL- CHALANG PATHER
GHILADHARI MOUZA
P.S. MERAPANUI
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785621
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-1
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF HOME
DISPUR

25. Page No.# 25/52
GHY-6
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-01
4:THE NRC COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN (NRC)
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GHY-05
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785621
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785621
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 6710/2018
1:KAMAL KUMAR TAMANG
S/O- LT BAL BAHADUR TAMANG (LIMBU)
R/O- NO. 1 UTTAR DIMAKUCHI
P.O. AND P.S. DIMAKUCHI
DIST- UDALGURI (ASSAM)
PIN- 784526
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI
PIN- 110011
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY.
GOVT. OF ASSAM

26. Page No.# 26/52
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
PIN- 781006
3:THE STATE COORDINATOR
OF NATIONAL REGISTRAR OF CITIZENSHIP (NRC)
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GHY-5
DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM)
PIN- 781005
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
UDALGURI
P.O. AND P.S. UDALGURI (ASSAM)
PIN- 784509
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
UDALGURI
P.O. AND P.S. UDALGURI (ASSAM)
PIN- 784509
6:THE ELECTORATE REGISTRATION OFFICER
DIST- UDALGURI
ASSAM
PIN- 784509
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARMAH
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 3014/2019
1:TANGKAMAYA DEVI
W/O SRI SOMNATH CHETRY
D/O SRI KHARGA BAHA @ KHARGA BAHADUR CHETRY
R/O PANPUR HAKAMA GAON
MOUZA- CHILABANDHA
P.O.- PANPUR
P.S.JAMUGURI
DIST.- SONITPUR (ASSAM)
PIN-784180
VERSUS

27. Page No.# 27/52
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
DIST.-SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BISWANATH
DIST.-BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN-784176
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
SONITPUR
DIST.-SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
BISWANATH
DIST.-BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN-784176
7:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
G.S.ROAD
LACHIT NAGAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781003
8:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI

28. Page No.# 28/52
PIN-110001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 761/2018
1:SADA KUMARI LIMBU ALIAS SADA KUMARI RAI
W/O. SRI BUDHA BAHADUR LIMBU
R/O. VILLAGE TEZALPATTY
P.S. SOOTEA
PIN-784001
DISTRICT-SONITPUR (ASSAM)
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 3 ORS
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR-784001
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR-784001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P UPADHYAY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 4013/2018
1:SMT. MOSTIMAYA LIMBU
W/O- SRI LAKHAN BAHADUR RAI
D/O- SRI JAGOT LIMBU @ JAGOT BAHADUR LIMBU

29. Page No.# 29/52
R/O- VILL- RAMPUR
MERAPANI
PS MERAPANI
PIN-785705
PO MERAPANI
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:UNION OF INDIAAND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
DEPTT. OF HOME
NEW DELHI-110001
2:STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY.
DEPTT. OF HOME
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN-785621
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
PIN-785621
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
GOLAGHAT
PIN-785621
6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
MERAPANI PS
PIN-785705
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K BHATTACHARJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Linked Case : WP(C) 623/2018
1:LILA DEVI
W/O. SRI PURNA CHAPGAI

30. Page No.# 30/52
R/O. VILLAGE NO. 1 JOISIDHI
P.S. SOOTEA
DISTRICT-SONITPUR (ASSAM)
PIN-784001
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIAAND 3 ORS
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR-784001
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SONITPUR
TEZPUR-784001.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P UPADHYAY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
:: BEFORE ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
29.11.2019
(Manojit Bhuyan, J)
On behalf of the respective writ petitioners in the present bunch of cases, being 29
writ petitions, which are being taken up together for final disposal by a common order, we

31. Page No.# 31/52
have heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel; Mr. P.N. Sharma, Advocate; Mr. N.N.
Upadhyay, Advocate; Mr. D. Sarma, Advocate; Mr. P. Sharmah, Advocate; Mr. A. Upadhyay,
Advocate; Mr. N. Upadhyay; Mr. B. Chetri, Advocate; Mr. L.R. Mazumder, Advocate; Mr. D.
Sarmah; Mr. K. Boruah, Advocate and Mr. P.J. Saikia, Advocate. We have also heard Mr.
S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant S.G.I., representing the Union of India; Mr. D. Baruah,
learned counsel for the Election Commission of India; Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for
the State of Assam and the other State respondents, and Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel
representing the State Co-ordinator, NRC, Assam.
Before adverting to the individual facts as emerging from each of the writ petitions,
we may first lay down the broad issue for determination involved in this bunch of cases.
We are made to determine as to (i) whether from the Investigation/Verification Reports
and that of the findings of the Tribunal concerned, conclusion could be derived that the
proceedee hails from the ‘specified territory’, within the meaning of Section 6-A (1) (c) of
the Citizenship Act, 1955, (ii) whether reference by the Referral Authority could at all be
made in the first place and/or whether the Tribunal concerned had jurisdiction to try the
references if the proceedee concerned was not suspected or found to have come into
Assam from the ‘specified territory’. In this respect, we may put a note at the very outset
that in so far as the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 in
the State of Assam are concerned, such Tribunals, in terms of Rule 21 of the Citizenship
Rules, 2009, has jurisdiction to decide references received from the Registering Authority
made under sub-section (3) of Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Further, as
defined in the Citizenship Act, 1955, ‘specified territory’ means the territories included in
Bangladesh immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,
1985.
The writ petitioners claim to belong to the Gorkha community of Nepali origin and
hailing from Nepal, having entered and settled in India on and from various dates, as
mentioned in the respective writ petitions. To ascertain this crucial aspect by taking strict
recourse to the case records received in original from the Tribunal concerned and/or from
relevant materials as available in the records, we undertake the following exercise that

32. Page No.# 32/52
would enable us to reach a conclusion :
(1) WP(C)/8490/2018 (Indira Newar vs. Union of India) puts a challenge to
the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal (2nd
), Mangaldai in Case No.FT(2) 53/2007,
which was rendered ex- parte on account of absence of the petitioner to appear
and contest despite due receipt of notice. The petitioner was declared as a
foreigner vide the opinion dated 31.03.2008. In the records of the reference
proceedings, particularly in the Report dated 25.08.1997 of the Local Verification
Officer, the petitioner is shown as the wife of one Chabid Pradhan and her year of
birth and place is recorded as 1971 at Rowmari, which is under district Udalguri,
Assam. In the said Report, particularly at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of
the petitioner and the dialect spoken, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is
shown as ‘Nepali’. Further, at column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is
made as regards the place i.e. state/country from where the petitioner is suspected
to have migrated from. Even in the impugned opinion dated 31.03.2008 there are
no findings with regard to the petitioner of having come to Assam from the
‘specified territory’. Neither in the reference made by the Referral Authority there is
any indication of the petitioner having come from the ‘specified territory’.
(2) WP(C)/4272/2016 (Thagendra Bojgai vs. Union of India) is a challenge to
the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC (6) 94/2015,
declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, having illegally entered into India after
25.03.1971 vide opinion dated 07.01.2016. From the Report dated 30.09.1997 of
the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, describes the
petitioner as the son of one Padma Prasad Bojgai, with both year and place of birth
recorded as 1969 at village Panpur, Jamuguri, which is in the district of Sonitpur,
Assam. In the said Report, particularly at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of
the petitioner and the dialect spoken, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is
shown as ‘Nepali’. At column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as
regards the place i.e. state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have
migrated from. In the opinion dated 07.01.2016 the Tribunal recorded that from

33. Page No.# 33/52
the evidence on record and the documents available the petitioner appeared to
have been born and brought up at village Panpur under Jamuguri Police Station.
The Tribunal also recorded that it was not cleared from the Verification Report as to
from which place the petitioner had migrated from. Neither in the reference made
by the Referral Authority there is any indication of the petitioner having come from
the ‘specified territory’.
(3) WP(C)/4317/2016 (Smti Bimala Devi vs. Union of India) is a challenge to
the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC (6) 118/2015,
declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, having illegally entered into India after
25.03.1971 vide opinion dated 23.06.2016. On a perusal of the Report dated
30.09.1997 of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, it is
seen that the petitioner is described as the wife of one Prem Prasad Upadhyay, with
both year and place of birth recorded as 1975 at village Tinikhuti, Biswanath
Chariali. On her marriage, her address is shown as village No.1 Jaisidhi, P.S.
Sootea, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. It is also seen from the said Report,
particularly at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the
dialect spoken, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is recorded as ‘Nepali’. At
column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e.
state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. In the
opinion dated 23.06.2016 the Tribunal recorded that from the evidence on record
and the documents available there was dispute as regards the place of birth of the
petitioner between village Uriabasti under Jinjia P.S. of Sonitpur district and village
Gorbhitor under Police Station Biswanath Chariali of district Sonitpur. Be that as it
may, the Tribunal recorded that as per the Report of the Verification Officer, the
mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and it was not clear from where she
migrated. Neither in the reference made by the Referral Authority there is any
indication of the petitioner having come from the ‘specified territory’.
(4) WP(C)/6168/2016 (Suramani Oza vs. Union of India) puts a challenge to
the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC (6) 95/2015,

34. Page No.# 34/52
declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream for having
entered into India without authority, vide opinion dated 15.07.2016. From the
Report dated 30.09.1997 of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case
records, the address and name of the father of the petitioner are shown as 1 No.
Jaisidhi and late Raghunath Oza, with both year and place of birth shown as 1945
at village Kuhiarbari (Bargang), which is under Sonitpur district. It is also seen from
the said Report, particularly at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the
petitioner and the dialect spoken, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is
recorded as ‘Nepali’. At column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as
regards the place i.e. state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have
migrated from. From the reference made by the Referral Authority, there is nothing
to disclose that the petitioner came into India (Assam) from the ‘specified territory’.
In the opinion dated 15.07.2016 the Tribunal recorded that it appeared from the
evidence on record and the documents available that the petitioner is permanently
residing at village Jaisidhi under P.S. Sootea, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. By
referring to the Report of the Verification Officer, the Tribunal recorded that the
mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’. However, it was not clear as to from
which place the petitioner had migrated.
(5) WP(C)/6211/2016 (Kedar Adhikari vs. Union of India) is a challenge to
the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC (6) 114/2015,
declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream for having
entered into India without authority, vide opinion dated 23.06.2016. From the
Report dated 27.09.1997 of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case
records, the address and name of the father of the petitioner are shown as
Tejalpatty and Sri Kashinath Adhikari. Said village Tejalpatty is under P.S. Sootea in
the district of Sonitpur, Assam. The year and place of birth of the petitioner are
shown as 1958 at Udalguri. It is seen from the said Report, particularly at
columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken, in
the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is recorded as ‘Nepali’. Also, at column 16

35. Page No.# 35/52
thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e.
state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. From
the reference made by the Referral Authority, there is also nothing to disclose that
the petitioner came into India (Assam) from the ‘specified territory’. Turning to the
opinion dated 23.06.2016, the Tribunal recorded that the Report of the Verification
Officer disclosed that the mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’. Further, the
Verification Officer have not stated from where the petitioner has migrated.
(6) WP(C)/6875/2016 (Smt. Mithu Chetri vs. Union of India) puts a challenge
to the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup, (Metro), Guwahati in F.T.
Kamrup (Metro) D.V Case No.9075/2011, which was rendered ex- parte on account
of absence of the petitioner to appear and contest despite due receipt of notice.
The petitioner was declared as a foreigner vide opinion dated 11.02.2015 of post
1971 stream. In the records of the reference proceedings, particularly in the
Report of the Local Verification Officer, the petitioner is shown as the wife of one
Lok Bahadur Chetri of village Dhrgasarovar. Her date and place of birth are shown
as 01.01.1971 at Guwahati. In the said Report, particularly at columns 12 and 13,
the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken, in the assessment of
the Inquiry Officer, are shown as ‘Nepali’ and ‘Assamese’ respectively. At column
16 thereof, which pertains to recording the place i.e. state/country from where
migrated, only an endorsement is made as ‘Does not arise’. Even in the impugned
opinion dated 11.02.2015, there are no findings with regard to the petitioner of
having come to Assam from the ‘specified territory’. Neither in the reference made
by the Referral Authority there is any indication of the petitioner having come from
the ‘specified territory’.
(7) WP(C)/7153/2016 (Hem Prasad Sarma vs. Union of India) is a challenge
to the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC (6) 182/2015,
declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream for having
entered into India without authority, vide opinion dated 10.08.2016. Although the
case records from the Tribunal have not been received, however, the Report dated

36. Page No.# 36/52
27.09.1997 of the Local Verification Officer have been enclosed to the writ petition
at Annexure-4. From a perusal of the said Report it is seen that the petitioner is
described as the son of one Sri Deo Narayan Sarma of village No.2 Balijuri, which is
under Sootea Police Station, in the district of Sonitpur. His year of birth in the said
Report is recorded as 1971. It is also seen from the said Report, particularly at
columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken, in
the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is recorded as ‘Nepali’. At column 16 thereof,
no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e. state/country from
where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. From the reference made
by the Referral Authority, there is also nothing to disclose that the petitioner came
into India (Assam) from the ‘specified territory’. Turning to the opinion dated
10.08.2016, the Tribunal recorded that it appeared from the evidence on record
and the documents available that the petitioner was born and brought up at village
Balijuri. The Tribunal have further recorded, by making reference to the Report of
the Verification Officer, that the mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and it
was also not clear from where the petitioner migrated.
(8) WP(C)/7346/2016 (Dal Bahadur Chetry vs. Union of India) is a challenge
to the opinion dated 28.09.2016 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No.
FTC (6) 176/2015, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971
stream for having entered into India without authority. From the case records
received in original from the Tribunal, it is seen from the Report dated 13.10.1997
of the Local Verification Officer describing the petitioner as hailing from village No.2
Balijuri and being the son of one Chandra Bahadur Chetry. His date of birth is
recorded as 1952 at Gogamukh. The said village No.2 Balijuri is shown as falling
within the district of Sonitpur, Assam in the Referral Order. Turning to the Report of
the Verification Officer it is seen at columns 12 and 13 that the mother tongue of
the petitioner and the dialect spoken is ‘Nepali’, in the assessment of the Inquiry
Officer. At column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the
place i.e. state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated

37. Page No.# 37/52
from. Also, from the reference made by the Referral Authority, there is nothing to
disclose that the petitioner came to India (Assam) from the ‘specified territory’. As
regards the opinion dated 28.09.2016, the Tribunal recorded that it appeared from
the evidence on record and the documents available that the petitioner is a
resident of village No.2 Balijuri under Sootea P.S. The Tribunal further recorded, by
making reference to the Report of the Verification Officer, that the mother tongue
of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and it was not clear from where the petitioner migrated.
(9) WP(C)/7934/2016 (Smti. Netra Maya Chetri vs. Union of India) puts a
challenge to the opinion dated 01.02.2011 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Goalpara in
F.T. Case No.1377/G/2008, which was rendered ex- parte on account of default on
the part of the petitioner to appear and contest the reference case despite several
opportunities being granted after the petitioner had made his first and last
appearance in the case on 23.09.2010. An adverse view was taken and the
impugned opinion was passed. From the case records as received in original from
the Tribunal, it is seen from the Report of the Local Verification Officer that the
petitioner is described as the wife of Tilok Bahadur Chetri and place of residence is
shown as Simlitola (Nepalipara). Her date and place of birth are shown as 1963 at
Simlitola (Nepalipara). In the said Report, particularly in respect of column 16
thereof, which pertains to indicating the place i.e. state/country from where
migrated, the same was left blank. It is also seen from the Referral Order of the
Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara that there is no mention of the
petitioner of having come from the ‘specified territory’. Even in the impugned
opinion dated 01.02.2011, there are no findings with regard to the petitioner or any
of her predecessor having come to Assam from the ‘specified territory’.
(10) WP(C)/959/2017 (Smt. Beda Maya Devi vs. Union of India) is a challenge
to the opinion dated 14.09.2016 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No.
FTC (6) 104/2015, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971
stream for having entered into India without authority. From the Report dated
26.09.1997 of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the

38. Page No.# 38/52
address and name of the father of the petitioner are shown as Jaisidhi and Siba
Prasad Parajuli, with both year and place of birth shown as 1968 at Biswanath
Chariali, which is presently district Biswanath. It is also seen from the said Report,
particularly at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the
dialect spoken, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is recorded as ‘Nepali’. At
column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e.
state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. From
the reference made by the Referral Authority, there is nothing to disclose that the
petitioner came into India (Assam) from the ‘specified territory’. In the opinion
dated 14.09.2016 the Tribunal recorded that as per the Report of the Verification
Officer, the mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’. There are no findings
whatsoever that the petitioner or any of her predecessors came to India (Assam)
from the ‘specified territory’.
(11) WP(C)/1175/2017 (Ganesh Bahadur Powrel vs. Union of India) is directed
against the opinion dated 23.11.2016 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case
No. FTC (6) 97/2015, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971
stream for having entered into India without authority. From the Report of the
Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the address and name of
the father of the petitioner are shown as Bhanupur and ‘Ratna Bdr’ with both year
and place of birth shown as 1978 at Nagsangker (Sootea). Column 16 of the
Report, which pertains to indicating the place i.e. state/country from where
migrated, the same was left blank. Even in the Referral Order of the
Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur, Tezpur, save and except mentioning
the particulars of the petitioner, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner
came to India (Assam) from the ‘specified territory’. In the opinion dated
23.11.2016 the Tribunal recorded that as per the Report of the Verification Officer,
the mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and it is not clear from where the
petitioner migrated from.
(12) WP(C)/2970/2017 (Tanka Upadhyay vs. Union of India) is directed

39. Page No.# 39/52
against the opinion dated 06.12.2016 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case
No. FTC (6) 258/2015, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971
stream for having entered into India without authority. From the Report dated
13.09.1997of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the
address of the petitioner is shown as Gorbil, P.O. Rangachakua, P.S. Jamugurighat,
which is in the district of Sonitpur, and the name of his father is described as
Moheswar Upadhyaya. The place of birth is also shown as Gorbil. At columns 12
and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken are recorded as
‘Nepali’ and ‘Assamese’ respectively. At column 16 thereof, no
assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e. state/country from
where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. The same has been left
blank. Turning to the opinion dated 06.12.2016, the Tribunal recorded that from
the evidence on record and documents available, it appeared that the petitioner
and his family members are permanently residing at village Gorbil under
Jamugurighat Police Station. Further, taking note of the Report of the Verification
Officer, the Tribunal recorded that the mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’
and that the Verification Officer have not stated from where the petitioner have
migrated from.
(13) WP(C)/7014/2017 (Jiban Sarmah vs. Union of India) is directed against
the opinion dated 09.08.2017 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC
(6) 62/2015, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream
for having entered into India without authority. From the Report dated
30.09.1997of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the
address of the petitioner is shown as No.1 Jaisidhi and the name of his father is
shown as late Shyamlal Chapagai which, however, is shown as late Shyamlal
Sarmah in the Referral Order. The year and place of birth of the petitioner is shown
as 1967 at Panpur Puranibheti. At columns 12 and 13 of the Report, the mother
tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken are recorded as ‘Nepali’. At column
16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e.

40. Page No.# 40/52
state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. The
same has been left blank. Turning to the opinion dated 09.08.2017, the Tribunal
recorded that from the evidence on record and documents available, it appeared
that the petitioner is permanently residing at village Puranibheti under
Jamugurighat Police Station, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. Further, taking note
of the Report of the Verification Officer, the Tribunal recorded that the mother
tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and it is not clear from where the petitioner have
migrated. There are no findings of the Tribunal with regard to the petitioner having
come to Assam from the ‘specified territory’. Neither in the reference made by the
Referral Authority there is any indication of the petitioner having come from the
‘specified territory’.
(14) WP(C)/572/2018 (Kusum Chiktal vs. Union of India) is directed against
the opinion dated 22.02.2017 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC
(6) 72/2015, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream
for having entered into India without authority. From the Report dated
26.09.1997of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the
address of the petitioner is shown as Tajalpatty, with husband’s name as Tulshi
Prasad Chiktal. The year and place of birth of the petitioner is shown as 1960 at
Behali, in the State of Assam. At columns 12 and 13 of the Report, the mother
tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken are recorded as ‘Nepali’. At column
16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e.
state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. The
particulars of the petitioner, as above, also finds place in the Referral Order of the
Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur, Tezpur, however, without any indication that
the petitioner has come from the ‘specified territory’. Turning to the opinion dated
22.02.2017, the Tribunal recorded that the mother tongue of the petitioner is
‘Nepali’. There are no findings of the Tribunal with regard to any fact that the
petitioner had come to Assam from the ‘specified territory’.
(15) WP(C)/614/2018 (Purna Chapgai vs. Union of India) is a challenge to the

41. Page No.# 41/52
opinion dated 29.03.2017 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC (6)
116/2015, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, having entered
into India without authority subsequent to 25.03.1971. From the Report dated
30.09.1997of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the
address of the petitioner is shown as No.1 Jaisidhi and the name of his father is
shown as late Shyamlal Chapagai. The year and place of birth of the petitioner is
shown as 1953 at Panpur Puranibheti. At columns 12 and 13 of the Report, the
mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken are recorded as ‘Nepali’. At
column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e.
state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. The
same has been left blank. Turning to the opinion dated 29.03.2017, the Tribunal
recorded that the mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and that there is no
disclosure of the Verification Officer as to from which place the petitioner has
migrated. There are no findings of the Tribunal with regard to the petitioner having
come to Assam from the ‘specified territory’. Neither in the reference made by the
Referral Authority there is any indication of the petitioner having come from the
‘specified territory’.
(16) WP(C)/623/2018 (Lila Devi vs. Union of India) is a challenge to the
opinion dated 14.02.2017 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC (6)
115/2015, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, having entered
into India without authority subsequent to 25.03.1971. From the Report dated
30.09.1997of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the
address of the petitioner is shown as No.1 Jaisidhi and the name of her husband is
shown as Purna Chapagai. The year and place of birth of the petitioner is shown as
1964 at Garuduba, which is under Thelamara Police Station, in the district of
Sonitpur, Assam. At columns 12 and 13 of the Report, the mother tongue of the
petitioner and the dialect spoken are recorded as ‘Nepali’. At column 16 thereof, no
assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e. state/country from
where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. The same has been left

42. Page No.# 42/52
blank. Turning to the opinion dated 14.02.2017, the Tribunal recorded that the
mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and it is not clear from where she
migrated. There are no findings of the Tribunal nor any suspicion had been
recorded by the Referral Authority with regard to the petitioner having come to
Assam from the ‘specified territory’.
(17) WP(C)/650/2018 (Gita Devi vs. Union of India) is a challenge to the
opinion dated 12.08.2016 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC (6)
233/2015, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, having entered
into India without authority subsequent to 25.03.1971. From the Report of the
Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the address of the
petitioner is shown as village Pithaguri Doul and the year of birth is shown as 1970
at the same place. Column 16 of the Report, which pertains to indicating the place
i.e. state/country from where migrated, the same was left blank. Even in the
Referral Order of the Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur, Tezpur, there is no
mention of the petitioner having come from the ‘specified territory’. Also, in the
opinion dated 12.08.2016, the Tribunal have recorded that as per Verification
Report the petitioner was born in the year 1970 at Pithaguri Doul and, as submitted
by the petitioner, she belongs to ‘Nepali’ community. Significant to note, there are
no findings of the Tribunal with regard to the petitioner having migrated into India
(Assam) from the ‘specified territory’.
(18) WP(C)/761/2018 (Sada Kumari Limbu vs. Union of India) is a challenge to
the opinion dated 06.12.2016 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case No. FTC
(6) 199/2015, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, having
entered into India without authority subsequent to 25.03.1971. From the Report
dated 27.09.1997of the Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records,
the address of the petitioner is shown as Tejalpatty, which is in the district of
Sonitpur, Assam and the name of her husband is recorded as Budha Bahadur
Limbu. The year and place of birth of the petitioner is shown as 1962 at Balijur,
which is under Sootea Police Station, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. At columns

43. Page No.# 43/52
12 and 13 of the Report, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect
spoken are recorded as ‘Nepali’. At column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement
is made as regards the place i.e. state/country from where the petitioner is
suspected to have migrated from. The same has been left blank. Turning to the
opinion dated 06.12.2016, the Tribunal recorded that the mother tongue of the
petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and it is not clear from where she migrated. There are no
findings of the Tribunal nor had any suspicion been recorded by the Referral
Authority with regard to the petitioner having come to Assam from the ‘specified
territory’.
(19) WP(C)/4013/2018 (Smt. Mostimaya Limbu vs. Union of India) is a
challenge to the opinion dated 21.05.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat,
Assam in Case No. FTG (D) 432/2010, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a
foreigner, in terms of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946. Pertinent to
mention that although the petitioner has projected herself as Mostimaya Limbu, the
description of the proceedee in the reference case was by the name of Muktimaya
Rai, however, without any change in the name of the husband and place of
residence. From the Report dated 04.04.2005 of the Local Verification Officer, as
available in the case records, the address of the petitioner is shown as village
Rampur and place of birth as Merapani. In the said Report, particularly at columns
12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken, in the
assessment of the Inquiry Officer, are shown as ‘Nepali’. At column 16 thereof,
which pertains to recording the place i.e. state/country from where migrated, only
an endorsement is made as ‘Does not arise’. Relevant to notice, neither in the
impugned opinion dated 21.05.2018 nor in the Referral Order of the
Superintendent of Police (B), Golaghat, there are findings or suspicion recorded of
the petitioner having come to Assam from the ‘specified territory’.
(20) WP(C)/4983/2018 (Smt. Tara Devi vs. Union of India) is a challenge to
the opinion dated 18.06.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat in Case No. FTG
(D) 494/2011, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, in terms of

44. Page No.# 44/52
Section 2(a) of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946. From the Report dated 20.09.1997 of the
Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the address of the
petitioner is shown as village Amguri, Mouza Borpathar, which is in the district of
Golaghat, Assam. Her year and place of birth is recorded as 1970 at Lakhimpur and
the name of her father is shown as Amar Bahadur Chetri. In the said Report,
particularly at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the
dialect spoken, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, are shown as ‘Nepali’ and
‘Assamese’ respectively. At column 16 thereof, which pertains to recording the place
i.e. state/country from where migrated, no endorsement was made and the same
was left blank. Relevant to notice, neither in the impugned opinion dated
18.06.2018 nor in the Referral Order of the Superintendent of Police (B), Golaghat,
there are findings or suspicion recorded of the petitioner having come to Assam
from the ‘specified territory’.
(21) WP(C)/5015/2018 (Tanka Bahadur Newar vs. Union of India) puts a
challenge to the opinion dated 04.04.2013 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1,
Goalpara, Assam in F.T. Case No.229/G/2006, whereby the petitioner was declared
to be an illegal migrant. From the Report of the Local Verification Officer, as
available in the case records, the address of the petitioner is shown as village
Geruwa, Nepalipara, which is under Dudhnoi Police Station, in the district of
Goalpara, Assam. The year of birth is recorded as 1950 and his father’s name is
recorded as Sivaraj Newar. In the said Report, particularly at columns 12 and 13,
the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken, in the assessment of
the Inquiry Officer, are shown as ‘Nepali’ and ‘Assamese’ respectively. At column 16
thereof, which pertains to recording the place i.e. state/country from where
migrated, no endorsement was made and the same was left blank. Most pertinent
to note is that the Tribunal in the opinion dated 04.04.2013 clearly recorded that
the petitioner is a Nepali person and is liable to be pushed back to his own country
Nepal within an early date. Under any circumstances, no finding was made by the
Tribunal nor any suspicion was recorded by the Referral Authority of the petitioner

45. Page No.# 45/52
having come to Assam from the ‘specified territory’.
(22) WP(C)/5016/2018 (Pabitri Upadhyay vs. Union of India) puts a challenge
to the opinion dated 10.11.2017 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Dhemaji in Case
No.FT/DMJ-248/2009 (corresponding to Memo No.FT/DMJ. 96/1387 dated
16.10.2006), which was rendered ex- parte on account of default on the part of the
petitioner to appear and contest the reference case despite several opportunities
being granted after the petitioner had taken steps on 15.06.2017 consequent
service of notice. An adverse view was taken and the impugned opinion was
passed, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, having come to Assam on or
after 25.03.1971. From the case records as received in original from the Tribunal,
it is seen from the Report of the Local Verification Officer 09.03.2005 that the
petitioner is described as the wife of one Damburu Upadhyay and place of
residence is shown as Mingmang Tarajan, which is in the district of Dhemaji,
Assam. In the said Report, particularly at column 12, the mother tongue of the
petitioner is recorded as ‘Nepali’ and, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, the
dialect spoken is clear and fluent. In column 16 thereof, which pertains to
indicating the place i.e. state/country from where migrated, the same was left
blank. It is also seen from the Referral Order of the Superintendent of Police
(Border), Dhemaji that there is no mention of the petitioner of having come from
the ‘specified territory’.
(23) WP(C)/5641/2018 (Ambika Devi Dimal vs. Union of India) is directed
against the opinion dated 29.03.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal 2nd Dhemaji at
Silapathar in FT (D) Case No.2nd Dhemaji-62/2017, whereby the petitioner was
declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. From the Report of the Local
Verification Officer dated 27.03.2005, as available in the case records, it is seen
that the petitioner is from 114 (ST) Jonai Assembly Constituency and the name of
her father is Godador and her year of birth is 1980. In the said Report, particularly
at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken,
in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, are shown as ‘Nepali’ and ‘Assamese’

46. Page No.# 46/52
respectively. At column 16 thereof, which pertains to recording the place i.e.
state/country from where migrated, no endorsement was made as to the country
of origin, save and except, that she migrated into Assam. In the reference made by
the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhemaji, only her particulars were given with the
name of the village as Dimowpala, without recording any suspicion of having
migrated into Assam from the ‘specified territory’. Contrary to the terms of
reference, which is based on the Report of the Local Verification Officer, the
Tribunal recorded that the petitioner be kept in the detention camp until she is
pushed back to the country of origin i.e. Bangladesh.
(24) WP(C)/6232/2018 (Ram Prakash Pakkrel vs. Union of India) puts a
challenge to the opinion dated 03.04.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal 2nd
Dhemaji
at Silapathar in FT (D) Case No.2nd
Dhemaji-97/2017, whereby the petitioner was
declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. From the Report of the Local
Verification Officer dated 27.03.2005, as available in the case records, it is seen
that the petitioner is from 114 (ST) Jonai Assembly Constituency and the name of
his father is Dandhiram and his year of birth is shown as 1968. In the said Report,
particularly at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the
dialect spoken, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, are shown as ‘Nepali’ and
‘Assamese’ respectively. At column 16 thereof, which pertains to recording the place
i.e. state/country from where migrated, no endorsement was made as to the
country of origin, save and except, that he migrated into Assam. In the reference
made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhemaji, only his particulars were given
with the name of the village as Dimowpala, without recording any suspicion of
having migrated into Assam from the ‘specified territory’. Contrary to the terms of
reference, which is based on the Report of the Local Verification Officer, the
Tribunal recorded that the petitioner be kept in the detention camp until he is
pushed back to the country of origin i.e. Bangladesh.
(25) WP(C)/6710/2018 (Kamal Kumar Tamang vs. Union of India) is directed

47. Page No.# 47/52
against the opinion dated 05.09.2008 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal (2nd
), Mangaldai
in Case No.FT(2) 536/2008, which was rendered ex-parte on account of absence of
the petitioner to appear and contest despite due receipt of notice. In such a
situation an adverse view was taken and the petitioner was declared as a
foreigner. From the case records received in original from the Tribunal, it is seen
that in the Report dated 29.08.1997 of the Local Verification Officer, the address of
the petitioner is shown as No.1 Sonajuli, which is under Paneri Police Station of
district Mangaldai, Assam. The name of his father is shown as late Bal Bahadur
Tamang, with the petitioner’s date and place of birth recorded as 01.03.1968 at
Dimakuchi. In the said Report, particularly at column 13, the dialect spoken, in the
assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is shown as ‘Nepali’. Further, at column 16
thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e.
state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. The
entire column 16 was left blank. Even in the impugned opinion dated 05.09.2008
there are no findings with regard to the petitioner of having come to Assam from
the ‘specified territory’. Neither in the reference made by the Referral Authority
there is any indication of the petitioner as hailing from the ‘specified territory’.
(26) WP(C)/7228/2018 (Bijoy Labur @ Bijoy Darjee vs. Union of India) is
directed against the opinion dated 05.07.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur
in Case No. FTC (6) 54/2018, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a
foreigner, having entered into India without authority subsequent to 25.03.1971.
Although the case records from the Tribunal are not received, the impugned
opinion itself gives sufficient indication as to the Report of the Local Verification
Officer with regard to the status of the petitioner. The Tribunal have recorded that
the Verification Report discloses that the mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’
and it is not clear from where the petitioner has migrated into Assam. There is also
no indication in the opinion as to any doubt expressed by the Referral Authority i.e.
the Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur, Tezpur to any fact that the petitioner
have come into Assam from the ‘specified territory’. From the impugned opinion it

48. Page No.# 48/52
can be seen that the father of the petitioner is late Harka Bahadur Darjee of village
Tewaripal, under Sootea Police Station, presently within the district of Biswanath
(erstwhile Sonitpur).
(27) WP(C)/7520/2018 (Karna Labur @ Darjee vs. Union of India) is directed
against the opinion dated 05.07.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case
No. FTC (6) 52/2018, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner, having
entered into India without authority subsequent to 25.03.1971. Apparently, the
case records from the Tribunal are not received. However, the impugned opinion
itself gives sufficient indication as to the Report of the Local Verification Officer with
regard to the status of the petitioner. The Tribunal have recorded that the
Verification Report discloses that the mother tongue of the petitioner is ‘Nepali’ and
it is not clear from where the petitioner has migrated into Assam. There is also no
indication in the opinion as to any doubt expressed by the Referral Authority i.e.
the Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur, Tezpur to any fact that the petitioner
have come into Assam from the ‘specified territory’. From the impugned opinion it
can be seen that the father of the petitioner is late Harka Bahadur Darjee of village
Tewaripal, under Sootea Police Station, presently within the district of Biswanath
(erstwhile Sonitpur).
(28) WP(C)/8413/2018 (Smt. Prema Limbu vs. Union of India) is a challenge
to the opinion dated 07.08.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam in Case
No. FTG (D) 466/2010, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner,
having illegally entered into thye territory of India (Assam). From the Report of the
Local Verification Officer, as available in the case records, the address of the
petitioner is shown as village Dhelonguri Merapani, which is under Merapani Police
Station, in the district of Golaghat. Her father’s name is recorded as late Purna
Kanta Limbu. At column 16 of the Report, which pertains to recording the place i.e.
state/country from where migrated, the same is left blank. Relevant to notice,
neither in the impugned opinion dated 07.08.2018 nor in the Referral Order of the
Superintendent of Police (B), Golaghat, there are any findings or suspicion recorded

49. Page No.# 49/52
that the petitioner came to Assam from the ‘specified territory’.
(29) WP(C)/3014/2019 (Tangkamaya Devi vs. Union of India) is directed
against the opinion dated 03.04.2019 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal-6, Tezpur in Case
No. FTC (6) 106/2018, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner,
having entered into India without authority subsequent to 25.03.1971. From the
case records received from the Tribunal, it is seen from the Report of the Local
Verification Officer that the area in question is of 75 Sootea Legislative
Constituency, where the address of the petitioner is shown as Panpur Hakama,
which is under Jamugurighat Police Station, in the district of Sonitpur. The
husband’s name is recorded as Khem Nath Chetri, which is corrected to Somnath
Chetri in the Referral Order of the Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur, Tezpur. At
column 16 of the Report, which pertains to recording the place i.e. state/country
from where migrated, the same is left blank. Relevant to notice, neither in the
impugned opinion dated 03.04.2019 nor in the Referral Order of the
Superintendent of Police (B), Sonitpur, Tezpur, there are any findings or suspicion
recorded that the petitioner came to Assam from the ‘specified territory’.
We have undertaken the rigorous exercise to look into the facts appearing in each
individual writ petition to find out whether in any way any of the writ petitioners are
shown to have any connection or origin or traceable to any territories included in
Bangladesh, within the meaning of ‘specified territory’ under Section 6-A (1) (c) of the
Citizenship Act, 1955. In the case of each of the writ petitioners they are shown to belong
to places within the State of Assam, as variously recorded in the Reports of the Local
Verification Officer. The mother tongue of the writ petitioners is ‘Nepali’, which is the
language spoken by the citizens of the neighbouring country Nepal, and which language
is also specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India. This is not to say that
a Nepali speaking individual can only have his/her origin at Nepal and not at Bangladesh.
However, for the purpose of initiating proceeding against a Nepali speaking person, for
examination as to whether he/she is a foreigner or not, in respect of references made
under sub-section (3) of Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 to a Tribunal constituted

50. Page No.# 50/52
under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 having jurisdiction over a district or part
thereof in the State of Assam, in terms of Rule 21 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, the
primary and necessary ingredient or the condition precedent is that reference can only be
in respect of persons who have come to Assam from the ‘specified territory’, meaning the
territories included in Bangladesh immediately before the commencement of the
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, and also having regard to the cut-off date of
migration into Assam as prescribed under the aforesaid Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act,
1955.
Law being clear, as above, there are neither any suspicion expressed by the Referral
Authority nor any findings recorded by the concerned Tribunals that any of the writ
petitioners are persons who have come into Assam from the ‘specified territory’. In
Section 6-A, particularly at sub-sections (2) and (3), the expression ‘specified territory’ is
predominant.
It would be apposite to make reference to the Notification dated 23.08.1988 of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby the misconception noticed
by the Central Government about the citizenship at the commencement of the
Constitution of India, of certain classes of persons commonly known as Gorkhas, who had
settled in India at such commencement, was clarified. Clarification made was that as from
the commencement of the Constitution i.e. from 26.01.1950, every Gorkha who had his
domicile in the territory of India and who was born in the territory of India or either of
whose parents was born in the territory of India or who had been ordinarily been a
resident in the territory of India for not less than five years before such commencement,
shall be a citizen of India as provided in Article 5 of the Constitution of India. There is yet
another Notification dated 24.09.2018 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home
Affairs (Foreigners Division), perhaps as a guidance while making future references in
respect of individuals claiming to belong to the Gorkha community of Nepali origin, on the
subject of a Memorandum dated 30.07.2018 submitted by the All Assam Gorkha Students’
Union to the Hon’ble Home Minister. It is seen that the issues raised in the Memorandum
had been examined by the Ministry of Home Affairs and decision thereof was also taken,

51. Page No.# 51/52
with approval of the competent authority. While reiterating the conditions of citizenship of
classes of persons known as Gorkhas, as specified in the earlier Notification dated
23.08.1988, the later Notification dated 24.09.2018 clearly laid down that “Since the
members of the Gorkha community originally hail from Nepal, it may not be appropriate
to declare all of them as from the ‘specified territory’ as defined under Section 6-A (1) (c)
of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Only those who have come from Bangladesh and living in
the State of Assam can be treated as from the ‘specified territory’ in accordance with
Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.” Further, “Only cases of members of Gorkha
community living in Assam who do not fall in any of the categories mentioned above may
be referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal for its opinion as to whether the person is or is not
a ‘foreigner’ within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946.” The categories are duly
mentioned in the said Notification dated 24.09.2018.
We may also take notice of the provisions of Section 8 of the Foreigners Act, 1946,
which relates to determination of nationality. A reading of said Section 8 in the context of
the present bunch of cases, it is seen that where for any reason it is uncertain what
nationality, if any is to be ascribed to a foreigner, in such cases that foreigner may be
treated as the national of the country with which he appears to the prescribed authority
to be most closely connected for the time being in interest or sympathy or if he is of
uncertain nationality, of the country with which he was last so connected. This provision
would be relevant to the extent that even if the most extreme view is taken that the
petitioners can never claim to be citizens of India, however, having regard to the status of
the petitioners as recorded in the Verification Reports to be persons having their mother
tongue and spoken dialect as ‘Nepali’, they can only be treated as the national of the
country to which they appear to be closely connected i.e. Nepal. Under no circumstances,
that too, in the absence of any reports of being persons coming into Assam from the
‘specified territory’, the provisions of Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 cannot be
made applicable to the petitioners.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation but to allow all the 29 writ
petitions by setting aside the impugned opinions in all the said 29 writ petitions. As a

52. Page No.# 52/52
necessary corollary, reference made against each of the writ petitioners by the respective
Referral Authority are also interfered with.
Office to send back the case records to the respective Tribunal forthwith.
Copy of this order be made available to Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant S.G.I.,
representing the Union of India; Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the Election
Commission of India; Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the State of Assam and Ms. A.
Verma, learned counsel for the State Co-ordinator, NRC, Assam.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant