WA 264/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr AB Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 4-8-2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5908/09. The appellant has been declared to be a foreigner (Bangladeshi national) who ent ered into India after the cut off date of 25th March, 1971. The appellant was sought to be deported and proceeding against him were institut ed in the Foreigners’ Tribunal/Illegal Migrants(D) Tribunal. Notice of the proceedings were served upon the appellant on 3-4-08 which was rec eived and acknowledged by the appellant by putting his left thumb impression in the presence of one witness Shri Dilip Ali. For reasons best known to him the ap pellant did not appear before the Tribunal and ultimately on 4-7-2008 an ex part e order was passed against him. On 13-8-2009 the appellant moved an application for obtaining a certified copy o f the order of the Tribunal which was also provided to him. On these broad facts the appellant filed a writ petition in this court challengi ng his deportation. In the writ petition, there was no mention nor any additiona l affidavit was filed by the appellant to submit that the notice was not duly se rved upon him. However, non-service of notice appears to have been the only argu ment made by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the appellant did receive the n otice. In view of this finding of fact the learned Single Judge found that no ca se was made out by the appellant for any interference with the order passed by t he Tribunal. The submission made before the learned Single Judge has been reiterated before u s by learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, it is not possible to go beyond the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge. There does no t appear to be any perversity in the conclusion that the appellant was served wi th the notice of the Tribunal. The appellant chose not to enter appearance befor e the Tribunal and had to face the necessary consequence, namely, an adverse ord er passed by the Tribunal. On facts we do not find any ground to interfere with the order under appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.