WA 349/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY (Amitava Roy, J) The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.11.2011 passed in WP(C) 5763/2011 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court while is suing notice on the challenge as laid therein had, in the interim, directed the appellant/ writ petitioner to surrender before the Superintendent of Police, Goa lpara and to be taken into custody and lodged in the detention camp. By the said order, however, the deportation of the appellant/ writ petitioner from India ha s been stayed until further orders. We have heard Mr AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ peti tioner and Mr PS Deka, learned State counsel. Ms Huda, learned Central Govt. cou nsel represented the Union of India. The appellant/ writ petitioner had approached this Court with the aforem entioned writ proceeding being aggrieved by the determination made by the learne d Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Goalpara in Case No. F.T. 411/G/06 proclaiming h er to be an illegal migrant of post 1971 stream from the specified territory pre sently included in Bangladesh and as a consequence leaving the Superintendent of Police (B), Goalpara/ Goalpara Police (Border Branch) at liberty to expel her f rom the territories of India. Responding to the challenge made to the above dete rmination, by the order impugned in the instant appeal notice had been issued an d the interim arrangement as above had been devised by the learned Single Judge. Mr Sikdar with reference to the statements made in the writ petition sup ported by an affidavit has urged that the appellant/ writ petitioner is a lady w ith two minor kids one of whom is aged 9 years and the other 1 ‰ years. Contendi ng that the younger child is a sucking baby and that the detention of the appell ant/ writ petitioner along with her children would in all probability jeopardize their existence, the learned counsel has urged that appropriate orders be passe d to stay/ suspend the arrangement made by the learned Single Judge vide the ord er impugned. To endorse his plea, Mr Sikdar has drawn our attention, amongst oth ers, to two orders dated 18.7.2011 and 25.11.2011 rendered in WP(C) 3432/2011 (R ahima Khatun -vs- Union of India & Ors.) and WP(C) 5932/2011 (Baharjan Nessa-vs- Union of India & Ors.). In reply, Mr Deka has urged that the appellant/ writ petitioner having b een proclaimed to be an illegal migrant by the learned Tribunal on the basis of contemporaneous records, the interim arrangement made by the impugned order does not warrant interference in the instant appeal. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. That the appellant/ writ petitioner in the writ petition has in categorical terms stated that she ha s two children aged as above and that the said statement is supported by a solem n affirmation to be true to her knowledge is a matter of record. This assertion has been reiterated in the Memorandum of Appeal as well. No affidavit-in-opposit ion has yet been filed by the respondents inter alia disputing the correctness o f his affirmation. Two Single Benches of this Court by the aforementioned orders in similar fact situations had made the following interim arrangements: Order dated 18.7.2011 in WP(C)3432/2011 : That being the position, I am inclined to pass an interim order staying operati on of the order dated 29th May 2009 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal in FT Cas e no. 193/06(B), in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner, howev er, shall appear once in every fortnight before the officer-in-charge of Baghbar police station and shall not lave the district of Barpeta without intimating th e said police station. Ordered accordingly. Order dated 25.11.2011 in WP(C) 5932/2011: Registry to list this case for orders immediately on receipt of LCR for fixing a date of hearing. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Baharjan Nessa shall not be deported from India, subject to the condition that she will appear before the S uperintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta within 15 days from today and furnish adequate surety to the satisfaction of the said authority. The petitioner shall also appear before the Baghbar police station every fortnightly. . In the above factual premise and on a cautious evaluation of the rival submissio ns, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appellant/ writ petitioner would surrender before the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara on 7.1.2012 at 11 a.m. along with her children as referred to b y her in the writ petition as well as in the Memorandum of Appeal. (ii) The Superintendent of Police, Goalpara would first determine her identity a nd that of her children and in particular ascertain as to whether the younger ch ild is a sucking baby, as claimed by the appellant/ writ petitioner. (iii) If this State authority is satisfied with regard to the correctness and ge nuineness of the claim of the appellant/ writ petitioner on the above counts, he would record her surrender but would not take them (appellant/ writ petitioner and her children) in custody. (iv) In such an eventuality, the appellant/ writ petitioner and her children wou ld report before the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara post 7.1.2012 once in ev ery fortnight until further orders. Ordered accordingly. The appeal stands disposed in the above terms. No costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned State counsel so as to enable him to do the needful in time.