+
  • HOME»
  • Gauhati High Court: Imposed Cost On Electoral Registration Officer For Referring Retired Army Officer To Foreigners Tribunal To Determine Citizenship

Gauhati High Court: Imposed Cost On Electoral Registration Officer For Referring Retired Army Officer To Foreigners Tribunal To Determine Citizenship

The Gauhati High Court in the case Jagat Chetri v. The Union of India & 5 Ors observed and has dismissed the cost imposed of Rs. 10,000/- on Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) of 52 Dibrugarh Legislative Assembly, which is being referred to the Foreigners Tribunal who being a retired army personnel, wherein rendering a service […]

The Gauhati High Court in the case Jagat Chetri v. The Union of India & 5 Ors observed and has dismissed the cost imposed of Rs. 10,000/- on Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) of 52 Dibrugarh Legislative Assembly, which is being referred to the Foreigners Tribunal who being a retired army personnel, wherein rendering a service of 38 years, for adjudication as to whether he being a citizen of India or not.
In the said case the court observed that the order of reference itself provides that the matter has been got verified by the ERO on the spot local verification on the question and it was being found that the date of birth of Jagat Bahadur Chetri is 1937 and Dibrugarh being the place of birth.
The division bench comprising of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua and Justice Robin Phukan, while setting aside the order of reference in the case observed and has held that if Jagat Bahadur Chetri was born in the year 1937 and his place of birth being Dibrugarh and there being no such material which is subsequent to his birth, therefore, he also migrated to the specified territory and thereafter also re-entered the State of Assam subsequent to March 25, 1971, the court is of the view that it was an absolute non-application of mind on the part of the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency which is to have been referred the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal for the opinion.
Further, it has also been highlighted by the court that the petitioner was serving in the Indian Army since 1963 and retired in 2005 and the officer who is enquiring and had not done its duty in the proper earnest. However, there can be no such reason as to why the petitioner would refuse to divulge the information that he was serving in Indian Army since 1963.
It has also been held by the court that the reference order is not being maintainable and it has been declared that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the privileges and the rights as a citizen of India as may be admissible under the law.
The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the ERO wherein causing inconvenience to the petitioner.

Tags:

Advertisement