Bina Bala Ray v. The Union of India and 8 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010070662019 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/2192/2019o BINAoBALAoRAYo W/O-oPRADIPoKR.oRAY,oR/O-oHoNO.o34,oVILL-oMADHUSOULMARIoPART-II,o P.S-oGAURIPUR,oDIST-oDHUBRI,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo8oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoMINoOFoHOMEoAFFAIRS,oGOVToOFoINDIA,oNEWoDELHI-o110001 2:THEoSTATEoOFoASSAM oREP.oBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVToOFoASSAM oDEPTToOFoHOME oGUWAHATI-o06 oASSAM 3:THEoELECTIONoCOMMISSIONoOFoINDIA oREP.oBYoTHEoCHIEFoELECTIONoCOMMISSIONER oGOVToOFoINDIA oNEWoDELHI-o110001 4:THEoNATIONALoREGISTERoOFoCITIZENS oOFFICEoOFoTHEoCOORDINATORoOFoNRC oDHUBRI oASSAM oPIN-o783301 5:THEoSTATEoELECTIONoCOMMISSION oREP.oBYoTHEoSTATEoELECTIONoOFFICER oASSAM oGUWAHATI oPIN-o781006 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 7:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER(CIVIL) DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 9:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE GAURIPUR POLICE STATION DIST-DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M J BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN O R D E R

17.02.2023 (A.M. Bujor Barua, J)

Heard Mr. MJ Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. L Devi, learned counsel for the respondents in the Union of India and the authorities in the NRC, Ms. A Verma, learned counsel for the respondents in the Home Department of the Government of Assam, Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the respondent in the Election Commission of India and Ms. K Phukan, learned counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. Page No.# 3/5

¶2The petitioner Bina Bala Ray was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal No. 5, Dhubri for rendering an opinion as to whether she is a person who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971. Accordingly, FT Case No. 5/GPR/37/2018 was registered.

¶3Before the Tribunal, amongst others, the petitioner relies on a voters list of the year 1993 of village 421 Barkashua under Gossaigaon Sub Division, which contains the name of Gotan Chandra Ray son of Mohim Chandra Ray at serial No. 43 House No. 21 and that of Bina Bala Ray at serial No. 46 House No. 21. Bina Bala Ray, the petitioner proceedee states that Gotan Chandra Ray of serial No. 43 of the said voters list is her father. The petitioner also relies upon the voters list of 1970. In the English translation of the voters list of 1970, the name of the village is stated as 421 Barkashua, police station Gossaigaon, wherein the name of Goten Chandra Ray son of Mohim Chandra Ray appears at serial No.

95.

¶4As the name of Goten Chandra Ray, the father of the petitioner did appear in the voters list of 1970 of village 421 Barkashua and the name of Goten Chandra Ray also appears along with the proceedee the petitioner Bina Bala Ray in the voters list of 1993 of village 421 Barkashua, a prima-facie indication is available that the petitioner may not be a person who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971.

¶5Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to examine the aforesaid aspect as to whether the petitioner is the daughter of Goten Chandr Ray, whose name appears in the voters list of 1970 of village 421 Barkashua.

¶6But we have noticed a disturbing factor in this writ petition. Page 27 Annexure-E is the English translation of the voters list of 1970 and the name of Page No.# 4/5 the village is stated as 421 Barkashua and the name of the voting centre is stated to be 180 Barkashua under police station Gossaigaon. On perusal of the voters list in vernacular which is available at page 28, it reveals the name and number of the village as No. 180 Barkashua and there is nothing indicated in the vernacular regarding voting centre and number to be 180 Barkashua as well as the village to be 421 Barkashua.

¶7If the village is actually 421 Barkashua in respect of the voters list of 1970, which is also 421 Barkashua in respect of the voters list of 1993, clearly the legal right is established. But it appears that the English translation had incorrectly added the name of the village to be 421 Barkashua at page 27 in respect of 1970 voters list whereas the original in vernacular does not contain so and the name is shown to be 180 Barkashua. It is also possible that the two villages indicated above may be one and the same, but that is another aspect. But as regards to the voters list of 1993 that is relied upon where the name of the village is shown to be 421 Barkashua and the voters list in vernacular of 1970 does not show the name to be 421 Barkashua, but incorrectly added in the English translation presented before the Court, a prima facie case of an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court is writ large.

¶8As the petition has been filed through the learned counsel namely Mr. M.J Baruah, without referring the matter any further to the Bar Council of India, we impose a cost of Rs. 3000/- (rupees three thousand) to be paid by Mr.M.J Barua, learned counsel before the District Legal Services Authority, Dhubri and also provide that such kind of incorrect translation which may lead to the existence of a legal right, which otherwise may not be available without such incorrect translation, should not be resorted to in filing of a writ petition.

¶9The petitioner shall appear before the Foreigners Tribunal No. 5, Dhubri on Page No.# 5/5

29.03.2023. Till the reasoned order is passed, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. Any reasoned order that may be passed if it is in favour of the petitioner, the same shall prevail over the earlier opinion rendered by the Tribunal and if the same is against the petitioner, consequence under the law may follow.

¶10Send back the LCR forthwith. The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant