Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010105322025 2025:GAU-AS:7503- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3070/2025 FAKARUDDIN S/O ABED ALI @ ABED VILL KOLMOUBARI PS MIKIRBHETA DISTMORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782001 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA HOME DEPTT NEW DELHI 1 INDIA 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 5 ASSAM 4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO BE REP BY THE COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD DELHI 110001 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) MORIGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Z HAMMAD, R DAS Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 09.06.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. Z. Hammad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned CGC, Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI, Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT Matters, and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 12.02.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam in Case No. FTG. 02/2016, arising out of Police Enquiry No. 02/2016, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner projects that the petitioner is a daily wage worker and he is a resident of village-Kolmoubari, P.S.- Mikirbheta in the District of Morigaon and in search of work he had gone to village Gandh Koiri under Sarupathar Police Station and Golaghat District and thereafter, returned back. 4. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the petitioner does not have a residence in the concerned village of Gandh Koiri, the process issued by the learned Tribunal could not be served and therefore, the same was hanged in the office of the village Gaon Panchayat. Page No.# 3/4 5. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are good and sufficient grounds for the petitioner to not appear before the learned Tribunal to contest the proceedings. Accordingly, he has prayed for setting aside the ex parte opinion with a further prayer to transfer the proceedings to the appropriate Tribunal at Morigaon. 6. Although, the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters has opposed the prayer, it is seen that as per the process service report, the Govt. Gaonburah of village No.1, Gandh Koroi under P.S.- Sarupathar in the District of Golaghat had informed the process server that the person mentioned in the notice is not a resident of his village and therefore, the notice addressed to the petitioner was hanged in the office of the Gaon Panchayat. This is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under paragraph 2 (5) (f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 7. Accordingly, as the process was not served in accordance with law, the Court is inclined to accept that the petitioner has a good and sufficient ground to not appear before the learned Tribunal when the matter was taken up for hearing. 8. Under such circumstances, the Court finds no reason to issue notice and call for the records. Accordingly, the said ex parte opinion dated 12.02.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam in Case No. FTG. 02/2016, arising out of Police Enquiry No. 02/2016 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to this learned Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat for fresh decision in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement as well as evidence. 9. As the petitioner is duly represented by his learned counsel, the petitioner is directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal within a period of 21 days Page No.# 4/4 from the date of this order and along with a certified copy of this order also present before the said learned Tribunal his written statement of defence and any other documents on which he intends to rely upon. 10. In so far as the prayer for transfer of the proceedings to Morigaon is concerned, in view of the judgment and order dated 25.04.2024 in WP(C) No. 1296/2022 Makibur Rahman vs Union of India & Ors, the said prayer for transfer of proceeding is rejected. 11. In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the said learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call a pass an appropriate order as deemed fit and proper. 12 Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above in the “motion” stage without issuance of notice to the respondents. 13. There shall be no order to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant