WA 249/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UB SAHA The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 7th August, 2009 passed by the lear ned Single Judge in WP(C) 73 of 2009. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the ground that she was a fo reigner (Bangladeshi National). The proceedings were initially initiated under t he Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983. Subsequently, when the statute was struck down by the Supreme Court, proceedings continued against the appellant under the Foreigners Act. It appears that notice was sent to the appellant for appearance. According to th e Tribunal, and as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, despite service of noti ce the appellant did not appear before the Foreigners Tribunal. Consequently, th e matter proceeded against her ex-parte and it was directed that she should be d eported out of India. The contention of the appellant was that service was not effected on her. It was held by the Tribunal that service was effected on the daughter-in-law of the appellant and therefore she was duly served. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the appellant has no daughter-in-law. In fact, she does not even have any son. To ascertain the correctness of this statement we requested the respondents to l ook into the matter and to verify the correct position and file an affidavit. An affidavit has now been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta on 11th October, 2010 in which the following statement is made in paragraph 5 : - That the humble deponent begs to state that the appellant Haliman Nessa is moth er of three children among which one is son and other three are daughters. Halim an Nessa has no daughter-in-law. But at the time of serving the summon, i.e. on 13/07/2007 the appellant was staying in a adjacent home with her two brothers-in -law, namely, Wahed Ali, the elder brother and Ramej Ali, the younger brother. H owever, she was absent on the very day i.e. 13/07/2007. Though, Haliman Nessa is not having any daughter-in-law but her elder brother-in-law Wahed Ali had three daughters-in-law, namely, Gulwara Begum, Mafida Khatun and Kadarjan Nessa. It a ppears that the UBC served the summon to one of the aforesaid daughters-in-law . Apart from the fact that the contents of paragraph 5 are extremely casually stat ed (particularly when it is stated that the appellant has three children among w hich one is a son and three others are daughters) we find that service was effec ted on the daughter-in-law of the brother-in-law of the appellant. It is stated that when service was effected, the appellant was staying with her brother-in-la w. Clearly therefore, there is nothing on record to suggest, as stated by the Fo reigners Tribunal, that service was effected on the daughter-in-law of the appel lant. That apart, we are of the view that service on the daughter-in-law of the brothe r-in-law of the appellant cannot be deemed to be service on her, particularly in a matter which has such serious consequences as deportation from the country. In view of the affidavit that has now been filed by the Superintendent of Police , Barpeta we are satisfied that service was not effected on the appellant and th is prevented her from appearing before the Foreigners Tribunal and contesting th e matter. That being the position, we set aside the order of the Foreigners Tribunal as we ll as the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the merits of the case. The appellant is said to be in District Jail, Barpeta since March, 2009. She sho uld be released forthwith unless she is required in some other case. The appellant will appear before the Tribunal for further proceeding on 1st Dece mber, 2010. Trial court records be sent back immediately. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.