Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010301582019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/9129/2019 NURBANU BIBI W/O SHAJAHAN ALI, VILL. BHELAMARI, P.S. GHOGRAPAR, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, 781349. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06. 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BAKSA DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM 781343. 4:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) BAKSA BTAD ASSAM 781343. 5:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI 110001. Page No.# 2/5 6:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) GHY.-32 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 17-07-2026 (K.R.Surana,J) Heard Mr. A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, FT & Border Matters and Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing counsel, ECI. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has assailed the exparte opinion dated 27.03.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, Assam in F.T. Case no. 2201/BAKSA/2016, arising out of S.P.(B) Baksa Reference : FT Case no. 293/2009, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on a perusal of the Tribunal records, he has come to know that the petitioner had filed a separate application under Order 3A(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 for setting aside the exparte opinion which was registered as Misc Case No. Page No.# 3/5 2201/BAKSA/2019 and the said petition was dismissed by the order dated 14.06.2019, on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose the details of the previously engaged counsel. 4. It has been submitted that he was not instructed in the matter and, therefore, in the writ petition, there is no reference made to the filing of the said Misc. Case No. 2201/BAKSA/2019, or orders passed therein. 5. The learned Standing counsel for the FT & Border Matters has opposed the prayer on the ground that the notice was duly served on the petitioner and instead of appearing, no steps were taken. However, in this writ petition, a plea has been taken to the effect that on receipt of notice, the petitioner had provided the process server with certain documents to prove her citizenship, which is not tenable. Moreover, it is submitted that the order passed in the said Misc. Case No. 2201/BAKSA/2019, has not been impugned in this writ petition. 6. Considered the materials available on record. 7. The record reveals that on filing of an application under Order 3A(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, the same was registered as Misc. Case No. 2201/BAKSA/2019. Therefore, the said application was filed within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing of the exparte opinion. 8. The learned Standing counsel for the FT & Border matters is correct in stating that the application for setting aside of the exparte opinion has not been referred to in the writ petition. However, the Tribunal records disclose filing of such an application within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the ex- parte opinion and it is noticed that the said petition was rejected on the ground that the Tribunal had put a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner to state the details of the previously engaged counsel as claimed in the petition dated 22.04.2019, the same was not disclosed and, therefore, the prayer made Page No.# 4/5 to vacate the exparte opinion was rejected. 9. In the considered opinion of the Court, as the vakalatnama of the earlier Advocate was already on record, there was no necessity for the learned Tribunal to put such query. Rather, it would have been appropriate for the learned Tribunal to examine the merit of the application. There might have been some compelling reasons for the petitioner not to disclose the identity of the previously engaged counsel. Therefore, on the facts unique to this case, the petitioner is found to have approached the learned Tribunal within 30 (thirty) days from the passing of the exparte opinion. Therefore, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for the Court to mould reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 14.06.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, by which Misc. Case No. 2201/BAKSA/2019 was rejected. 10. Accordingly, the said Misc. Case No. 2201/BAKSA/2019 is restored to the file of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, with a direction to reconsider and dispose of the said Misc. case, in accordance with the law. 11. As the order is being passed under facts unique to this case, the order is not intended to be cited as a precedent in the future. 12. Upon moulding of the reliefs as prayed for, this writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above, by restoring Misc. Case No. 2201/BAKSA/2019, to file for an appropriate decision by the learned Tribunal. 13. The Registry shall return back the records to the learned Tribunal. 14. The petitioner, who is duly represented by the learned counsel, is directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal within the outer limit of 24.08.2026, and by producing a certified copy of the order, await for further directions that Page No.# 5/5 may be passed by the said learned Tribunal. 15. Parties are left to bear their own costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant