Shri. Benher v. The Deputy Commissioner And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/689/2024 Shri Benher Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner and Another Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents January 28, 2025 [SR] Item no. 13 1.
The writ petition is heard in absence of respondent no.2 since in spite of repeated attempts as per liberty granted by the Coordinate Benches notice could not be served upon the respondent no.2. However, petitioner and respondent no.1 are represented by learned advocates.
2.
Matter is heard at length wherefrom it appears that order dated 16th September, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nicobar District is assailed since by that order, respondent no.2 was permitted to stay along with his wife and other members of Nicobarese Tribe which is a tribe being treated as aboriginal group under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation). 3.
It is submitted by Mr. Prasanth, learned advocate representing the petitioner that unless a pass is issued in terms of clause 7 of the said Regulation, respondent no.2 should not be permitted to stay along with his wife and other members of Nicobarese Tribe.
4.
It is further submitted that the child born in the wedlock of the respondent no.2 and the female member of the said Nicobarese Tribe namely Smt Nilie is studying in school in Port Blair. Respondent no.2 is running business illegally at the place where members of Nicobarese Tribe are residing which is not permissible under the said Regulation of 1956. 5.
Learned advocate representing the Deputy Commissioner, Nicobar District, being respondent no.1, in support of the order dated 16th September, 2024 has placed before this Court a certificate dated 3rd January, 2024 signed by the members of the Tribal Council permitting the respondent no.2 to reside at the place along with his wife. Copy of the said certificate dated 3rd January, 2024 is taken on record.
6.
It is further submitted that marriage of respondent no.2 was registered by Special Marriage Officer and thereafter respondent no.2 and his wife are leading married life since 13th February, 2019. Therefore, according to the respondent no.1, since the respondent no.2 is married to a member of Nicobarese Tribe, no pass is required under clause 7 of the said Regulation of 1956.
7.
Having considered submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking note of the order dated 16th September, 2024 passed by the respondent no.1, it appears that a decision was taken to permit the respondent no.2 to reside along with his wife who is a member of Nicobarese Tribe, since they are married couple since 13th February, 2019.
8.
If at this stage Court restrains respondent no.2 not to stay with his wife where the members of the Nicobarese
Tribe reside in that event, the right of the respondent no.2 to lead a normal family life by staying with his wife will be infringed that will be contrary to the constitutional mandate as guaranteed under Part -III of the Constitution. 9.
Moreover, on reading of clause 7 of the said Regulation of 1956, it appears that purpose of issuance of pass by the appropriate authority is permitting a person to enter into the reserved area where members of aboriginal tribe reside contemplates a mere entry into that area but not to lead married life with family members of such tribe after marriage was solemnized.
10.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court refuses to interfere with the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 16th September, 2024. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed.
11.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate appearing for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. )