@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.N. Saikia, C.J.@mdashHeard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. S. Ali. Heard also Mr. P. Prasad, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam.
2. The Petitioners'' case was referred to the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta. The Tribunal held that the Petitioners were illegal migrants, as contemplated u/s 3(1)(c) of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983. The Petitioners appealed there from to the Illegal Migrants Appellate Tribunal. The learned Appellate Tribunal by order dated 8.9.86 held that the decision of the lower Tribunal was not based on infrastructure available on the record and accordingly it quashed the order of the lower Tribunal dated 19/20-2-86 and remanded the case to the lower Tribunal with the direction to both the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the case afresh within two months. However, the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, after remand, by its order dated 20.2.87 dismissed the reference on remand after finding that the Petitioners were pushed back to Bangladesh in the year 1978 on the basis of a Quit India Notice and that Section 2 of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal). Act had put a bar to the trial of such cases by the Tribunal. The reference was accordingly dismissed on the point of jurisdiction. Hence this petition.
3. Mr. S. Ali, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Tribunal after remand ought to have acted in accordance with the direction given by the Appellate Tribunal, but instead of doing so it has found out a new point which was not found out by the earlier Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, and as the police is after the Petitioners they have no alternative but to come to this Court. We, however, feel that since the Tribunal had not acted in accordance with the remand order and had dismissed the reference on the question of jurisdiction which was neither agitated earlier before it nor it was agitated before the Appellate Tribunal, it would be appropriate for the Petitioners to appeal against the order passed after remand before the appellate Tribunal.
4. We accordingly direct the Petitioners to prefer appeal before the appellate Tribunal against the impugned order passed on remand. Mr. Ali expresses apprehension that the appeal may by now be barred by limitation and that the Petitioners are illiterate and ignorant villagers and were bona fide believing that their remedy lay in the High Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement. We accordingly direct the appellate Tribunal to entertain the Petitioners'' appeal without raising any question as to limitation in the interest of justice. The Petitioners shall file the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within three weeks from today. The Petitioners shall not be deported during this period. It shall be open for the Petitioners to pray for appropriate interim orders before the Tribunal.
5. In the result, with the above observations and direction, this petition is disposed of.
