Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010085522025 2025:GAU- AS:11493-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1741/2025 SAHERA KHATUN @ SAHERA BEGUM D/O LATE ASHAN ULLAH, R/O VILL. MARICHA PATHAR, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781301 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781301 4:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781301 Page No.# 2/5 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1 6:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K SEN, N HASAN,MR A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM Linked Case : Review Petition vide Filing No. 4912/2025 SAHERA KHATUN ALIAS SAHERA BEGUM BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI ------------ Advocate for : Anowar Hussain Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS Linked Case : IA(Civil) vide Filing No. 4913/2025 SAHERA KHATUN ALIAS SAHERA BEGUM BARPETA ASSAM Page No.# 3/5 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI ------------ Advocate for : Anowar Hussain Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 27.08.2025 (Kalyan Rai Surana, J.) Heard Mr. B. K. Sen, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Ms. S. T. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant, namely, Sahera Khatun @ Sahera Begum, is praying for condoning the delay of 2053 days, beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected review petition. 3. The connected review petition is directed against the order dated 07.08.2019, passed in WP(C) No. 3602 of 2019. 4. The case of the applicant is that she was taken into custody by the Police Page No.# 4/5 and lodged at the Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara, for which she could not file the review petition on time. 5. It is also stated that the applicant was not aware about the free legal aid, which could be availed by her. After coming to know about such free legal assistance being available, she had approached the District Legal Services Authority, Goalpara, and the said authority by a letter dated 10.01.2025, requested the Secretary, Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee, to provide Legal Aid and accordingly, by a communication dated 24.02.2025, the Legal Aid Counsel was engaged for the matter, and some time was consumed by the Legal Aid Counsel to prepare the review petition and to present it before the Court, and by this time, the delay of 2053 days beyond the period of limitation had occurred. 6. The learned Legal Aid Counsel has submitted that although the proceeding of WP(C) No. 3602 of 2019, was disposed of on 07.08.2019, but the said order was not communicated to her by the then engaged learned counsel and she became aware of the dismissal of the said writ petition only after 19.12.2024, when she was taken into custody. 7. The prayer made in this interlocutory application has been opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters. 8. In the considered opinion of the Court, having preferred a writ petition against the opinion dated 26.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1st, Barpeta, in FT Case No. 279/2016, arising out of IM(D)T Reference Case No. 3074/97, whereby an opinion was expressed that the applicant is a foreigner of post-25.03.1971, it was the duty on the part of Page No.# 5/5 the applicant to keep track of the proceedings, which was preferred by her. Non- supply of the information about the result of the said WP(C) No. 3602/2019, is not found to be a ground, on which the delay of 2053 days could be condoned because the petitioner has not been able to show that she was vigilant to know about the fate of the writ petition or that she was keeping a track about the case. It is not her case that the engaged counsel had misled her by providing false information. 9. Although the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has a good case on merit, but that alone cannot be a ground for condoning the delay, in view of the nature of explanation tendered by the applicant, which is rejected. 10. Consequently, this Interlocutory Application stands dismissed. 11. Resultantly, the unnumbered Review Petition vide Filing No. 4912/2025, as well as the Interlocutory Application (Civil) vide Filing No. 4913/2025, also stand dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant