Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13647 (GAU)

MOFIJA BAGUM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

WP(C)/3187/2025 · 2025-06-11

Arun Dev Choudhury

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010120092025 2025:GAU-AS:7676 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3187/2025 MOFIJA BAGUM W/O- MD. HARISH ALI, R/O- VILL.- BOR ABHOIPURIA GAON, P.S. TENGAKHAT, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786103. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001. 4:THE IN-CHARGE MATIA DETENTION CENTRE/ TRANSIT CAMP GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED, P. GHOSH,B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 12.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. AM Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, namely, Harish Ali, brother- in-laws, namely, Md. Saiful and Rafiqul Ali and sister-in-law, namely, Rubi Begum were declared as illegal migrants from specified territories by the ex- parte orders dated 30.04.2021 in FT case No. 114/2018 and FT case No. 112/2018, order dated 28.07.2021 in FT case No. 115/2018 and order dated 06.09.2024 in FT case No. 113/2018 respectively. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, though review petition was filed before the Tribunal, however, same were also rejected by order dated 15.02.2024. It is the further case of the petitioner that since 25.05.2025, the aforesaid declared foreigners are detained in the Matia Detention Centre, Goalpara. 4. The present writ petition is filed with a limited prayer that the aforesaid declared foreigners wish to prefer writ petition before this court challenging the ex-perte order passed by the Tribunal, however, the authorities are not allowing the petitioner to meet her relatives, who are in detention and even are not allowing to sign the vakalatnama for the purpose of preferring writ petition. 5. Mr. SS Roy, learned Government Advocate submits that since the prayer is limited, this writ petition may be disposed of directing the In-charge, Matia Detention Centre, Goalpara to allow the petitioner to meet the aforesaid detenus/ detenues and to obtain their signatures and necessary papers for the purpose pursuing legal remedies. Page No.# 3/3 6. This court is also of the opinion that the declared foreigners shall have a right to pursue legal remedy and therefore, the authorities are under bounden duty to afford them the opportunity to get their documents signed for the purpose of taking legal remedies and allow them to meet their family members in the detention camp. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the In- charge, Matia Detention Centre, Goalpara to allow the petitioner to meet her relatives as detailed hereinabove, at a time convenient to the In-charge, within a day from today and on receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter allow the detenus/ detenues to sign the documents including the vakalatnama for further course of action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant