WP(C) 5901/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the pet itioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 1.7.09 (Anne xure-A) passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara in FT Case No.233/G/ 06 (Reference IM(D)T Case No.340/99), whereby and whereunder, the learned Tribun al held that the petitioner entered into Assam after 25th March, 1971 and theref ore, in view of Section 6 A of Citizenship Act, the petitioner has no locus stan di to live in Assam/India as the case may be. 2. Heard Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BC Saikia, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 and Mr. DK Saikia, learned Central Government Counsel (’CGC’ for short) appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner, who belongs to schedule caste community and a permanent resident of Dhubri, claims citizenship of India by birth and he is now staying a t Goalpara. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the same has been pass ed ex-parte. 4. Petitioner’s case in brief is that after receiving notice from the learn ed Tribunal, he appeared and filed written statement by engaging a lawyer to con duct the case. The petitioner is a carpenter by profession and mostly remains ou t of station for various works. He is a poor person living hand to mouth and he being an uneducated person not aware of the legal proceedings. The petitioner fi led written statement in the case and alongwith it, in support of establishing h is case for citizenship submitted his school certificate and voter list of his f ather. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner was working at Tinsukia d istrict far away from Goalpara and so he was unable to contact his lawyer. The p etitioner was also not aware that his lawyer had withdrawn from the case as no n otice to that effect has been received by him. Further, the petitioner was suffe ring from acute chest problem, for which he left his work for a considerable per iod of time and was almost bedridden. In the written statement filed by the peti tioner, it was contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Dhubri C ollege Road, Dhubri town, Dhubri. He had his primary education at 678 No. Dhubri LP School at Dhubri during the period of 1960-65 and to that effect a certifica te was also enclosed with the written statement so filed. His father’s name appe ared in the voter list of 1959 under 31 legislative Constituency, Dhubri (Ward N o.9). 5. As the petitioner could not contact the lawyer for a considerable period , his lawyer without informing him had withdrawn from the case and no notice was sent to that effect and thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed ex-par te. 6. In the instant case in hand, petitioner has assigned a good cause for hi s non-appearance. Clause (3)(i) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order prescribes proc edure to be followed by the Tribunal in disposal of the cases. A reasonable oppo rtunity of hearing including the production of evidence in support of his or her case is contemplated by the procedure prescribed. In the aforesaid background, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he had no opportunity to adduce evide nce to prove that he is a citizen of India and not an illegal migrant. 7. I have perused the record of the case. Perusal of the same would reveal that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner filed an application on 2 7.1.09 before the Tribunal praying for allowing her to withdraw from the case. A ccordingly, court allowed her to withdraw from the case as prayed for and therea fter, no step was taken by the court to inform the respondent. It is true that t he counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are representatives of the parties , but, when the counsel prays for withdrawing from the case and the prayer so ma de by the counsel was allowed by the court, the counsel no longer represents the party/parties. It was, therefore, the duty of the court to issue notice to part y/parties (respondent herein). But in the instant case, the court never informed the respondent that the court would take up the case on a particular date. In t he above context, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has miserably failed to di scharge the solemn duty. This aspect of the matter is totally overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 8. In view of the above, considering the consequences of the impugned order , in my opinion, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner, in asmuch as, fair trial has been denied to the petitioner. Therefore, without goin g to the merit of the case, the impugned order dated 1.7.09 passed by the learne d Tribunal is set aside. 9. Learned Tribunal is directed to pass order in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for adducing evidence in support of his case, both oral and documentary. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is on bail. Till the disposal of the reference case, i.e. IM(D)T Case No.340/99 before the Tribunal, the petitioner is allowed to remain on prev ious bail. 11. As the learned counsel appearing for the parties are present in the cour t, parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 27.8.10 for rec eiving necessary order from the Tribunal. 12. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 13. Send down the lower court record.