Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010217252019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6484/2017 NIBARAN BISWAS S/O- HAREN BISWAS @ HARENDRA BISWAS R/O- VILL NO.2 GUNAMARA P.O- AZARBARI P.S- DHARAMTUL PIN- 782105 DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DHARAMTUL POLICE STATION DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR.K LAHKAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 (S. K. Medhi, J) The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against an opinion dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal-1st, Morigaon in F.T.(D) Case No.192/2010, whereby the petitioner has been declared a foreigner post, 1971. 2. We have heard Shri K. Lahkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department, Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for N.R.C, Shri P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for E.C.I and Ms. B. Sarma, learned C.G.C. Page No.# 3/5 3. Shri K. Lahkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has at the outset questioned the jurisdiction and authority of the learned Tribunal to proceed with the matter. He has submitted that the reference was against one "Haren Mandal" and accordingly the inquiry was also held against the said "Haren Mandal" culminating in a report of the Verification Officer in the same name. He has also submitted that the report mentions that the individual "Haren Mandal" was found to be a permanent resident of No.2. Gunamara Village in the District of Morigaon. The learned Tribunal on receipt of the reference had issued notice on 03.07.2015 to the said "Haren Mandal". There is a report from the process server that the proceedee was not available. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has clarified that the name of his father is "Haren Biswas" who had passed away in the year 2002. Under such circumstances, the case was filed on 17.09.2015. However, it transpires that the learned Member had sought further information including from the Officer-in- Charge, Dharamtul, P.S. The Dharamtul P.S. had given a report stating that the proceedee was actually "Nibaran Mandal" son of "Haren Mandal" whereas the reference was wrongly made in the name of "Haren Mandal" son of "Nibaran Mandal". The learned Counsel has clarified that in any case his client is "Nibaran Biswas" and not "Nibaran Mandal". 4. The learned Tribunal had accordingly issued notice to the said "Nibaran Mandal" on 30.11.2015. Upon receipt of notice, in spite of the projection that the petitioner is "Nibaran Biswas" and not "Nibaran Mandal", the petitioner had contested the proceeding which had culminated in the impugned opinion. 5. Shri Lahkar, learned Counsel has submitted that the aspect of his client submitting before the learned Tribunal would not confer jurisdiction to the Page No.# 4/5 Tribunal which assumes jurisdiction only on the strength of a validly made reference. 6. Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department has fairly submitted that the records of the Tribunal would reflect that the reference was made against one "Haren Mandal". Whether the said "Haren Mandal" and "Haren Biswas" is the same person would be a different aspect, but there is no reference in the name of either "Nibaran Biswas" or "Nibaran Mandal". 7. On the point of law, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as a matter of fact, the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction on the basis of a validly made reference. 8. It transpires that there are materials to suggest that the reference itself was made against a wrong person. As noted above, while the reference was made against "Haren Mandal" son of "Nibaran Mandal" , it should have been in the reverse i.e. "Nibaran Mandal" son of "Haren Mandal". There is a further aspect as to whether "Nibaran Mandal" and " Nibaran Biswas" would be the same person. 9. Without going into those aspects and also without entering into the merits of the case on which the opinion was rendered, we are of the view that in absence of an validly made reference against the petitioner as a proceedee, the learned Tribunal would not have assumed jurisdiction. It is res integra that if an act is done without jurisdiction, all consequent action would be non-est in law. 10. In view of the above, the impugned opinion is interfered with and set aside. We however, make it clear that the interference is only on the aspect of Page No.# 5/5 the reference being wrongly made and would not preclude the authorities to make a reference in accordance with law in which case, the learned Tribunal would proceed in accordance with law. 11. Let the records be sent back. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant