Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010180812021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6037/2021 UMAR ALI S/O LATE JAMIR ALI, VILL. BAKARAPATTA, P.S. SOOTEA, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM 784145 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN G.S.ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 781005 5:THE MEMBER Page No.# 2/6 FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (6TH) TEZPUR SOOTEA BISWANATH ASSAM 784175 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BISWANATH ASSAM 78412 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR S JAFRI,MR. M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17-06-2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI, Ms. U. Borthakur, learned CGC and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur, Tezpur, a case being FT Case No. 84/2014, arising out of SP Case No. 104/2014 was registered before the learned Foreigners Tribunal (2nd), Sonitpur, Tezpur. 3. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner, namely, Md. Umar Ali, entered appearance in the matter and filed his written statement and in his evidence, the petitioner had exhibited the Voters list of 1965 (Ext. A), where the name of his grandfather namely, Rabel Ali was enlisted. Thereafter, on the basis of other Page No.# 3/6 exhibited documents, the Voters list of 1993 (Ext. B) and Gaonburah certificate (Ext. C), the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (second), Sonitpur, Tezpur gave an opinion that the petitioner is not found to be a foreigner. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner had received another notice from the learned Foreigners Tribunal (6th), Tezpur, Sootea, bearing Superintendent of Police (Border’s) Reference No. TZP(B)/09/3527 dated 30.12.2009 being F.T. Case No. FTC (6) 550/2018 fixing the date of appearance on 02.11.2021. Accordingly, the aggrieved petitioner had filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by invoking the principle of res judicata, which has been laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus v Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604, prays for quashing of the subsequent proceedings and the notice dated 05.10.2021. 6. Having heard the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, this Court takes note of the fact that the issue regarding res judicata was taken up by this Court on an earlier occasion in the case of Jamiruddin Mollah v. Union of India and Ors., WP(C) 4801/2025 decided on 31.10.2025. In the said decision, this Court had accepted the well settled position of the principles of res judicata which applies in the proceedings of Foreigners Tribunals and took further note of the fact that the decision in the case of Abdul Kuddus (supra) has been followed in the case of Tara Banu Begum, 2025 (4) GLT (SC) 36 and Swapan Dutta v. Union of India and ors., Civil Appeal No. 6799/2025, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 14.05.2025 and Rajia Khatun @ Razia Khatun, Civil Appeal No. (not provided in the copy supplied) //2025 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12481/2023, decided by the Page No.# 4/6 Supreme Court of India on 11.02.2025] and Sital Mandal v. Union of India and ors., (2022) 3 GLT 94. 7. Thereafter, the Court was of the view that in order to apply the principle of res judicata, it was the first and foremost requirement of the learned Foreigners Tribunal to determine whether the proceedee in the previous proceedings is the same person who is arrayed as the proceedee in the subsequent proceedings. Accordingly, the Court took a view that unless the petitioner files his written statement and produces the documents on which he intends to rely on, only thereafter the learned Foreigners Tribunal will be able to arrive at a satisfaction that both the proceedees are one and same. At the same time, the State respondents, if so advised may also produce evidence before the learned Tribunal to show that the proceedees in both the cases are different. However, if the Tribunal arrives at a satisfaction that the proceedee in both the cases is the same, then the learned Foreigners Tribunal shall be bound to apply the principle of res judicata in light of the law well settled on the point. 8. The Court further took a view that this Court in exercising certiorari jurisdiction and therefore, has a limited jurisdiction limited to only determine as to whether the orders passed by the Tribunals are perverse and illegal or is otherwise sustainable and in that regard the Court had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC 733: (2023) 0 Supreme (SC) 763, as well as paragraph nos. 20-23 of the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 233. Accordingly, this Court had taken a view that in the absence of any determination by the learned Tribunal as to whether or not both the proceedees are the same person, if this Court ventures to examine the documents of the petitioner, than this Court will be exercising Page No.# 5/6 original jurisdiction not vested in this Court while deciding a writ petition under certiorari jurisdiction. Therefore, following the decision taken in the case of Jamiruddin Mollah (supra), in the present case in hand, it is for the learned Foreigners Tribunal to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement and produce all the documents on which he intends to rely and the State respondents, if so advised, shall also be allowed to produce evidence before the learned Foreigners Tribunal to show that the proceedee in FT Case No. 84/2014 which was decided on 19.08.2018 by the Foreigners Tribunal 2nd, Sonitpur, Tezpur and the proceedee in FTC (6) 550/2018 pending before the learned Foreigners Tribunal 6th, Tezpur, Sootea are different persons. Accordingly, the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th, Tezpur, Sootea on a plea of res judicata being taken by the petitioner, shall first determine whether the proceedees in both the cases are the same and then the learned Tribunal shall be bound to apply the principle of res judicata in light of the well settled law on the point. 9. It is further clarified that if it is found that the present petitioner is the same person in respect of the opinion dated 19.08.2014 which was passed in FT Case No. 84/2014, the present proceedings in respect of FTC (6) 550/2018 shall be dropped. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms as indicated above. 11. There shall be no order as to cost. 12. The petitioner duly represented by the learned counsel shall appear before the said learned Tribunal on 13.07.2026 by producing a certified copy of this order awaiting directions from the said learned Tribunal. Page No.# 6/6 13. In the meantime, the Registry shall send back the records to the concerned Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant