Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010140112025 2025:GAU- AS:11254-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3671/2025 MOINUL HAQUE @ MD MAINUL HAQUE S/O LATE RIAZ ALI, P/R/O VILL- MADHYAM SAMARALI, P.O.- CHOUDHURY BAZAR, P.S.- MURAJHAR, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782439 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110011 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARBI ANGLONG Page No.# 2/5 DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782460 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-78246 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. I HUSSAIN, MS. M MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 20.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. Md. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Moinul Haque @ Md. Mainul Haque, has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 08.11.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, in F.T. Case No. 123/2007 [arising out of Police Ref. Case No. 12/2007], by which the petitioner was declared as a foreigner, who has entered into India (Assam) illegally after Page No.# 3/5 25.03.1971. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time when enquiry was being made, the petitioner was a resident of Rong Nagar, and he had shifted his temporary residence form the said locality to Chinargaon. It has been submitted that both the localities are under Howraghat Police Station and in the same Karbi Anglong District. It has been submitted that no one including the Gaonburah had informed him about the notice issued by the learned Foreigners Tribunal. It is further submitted that the petitioner has all the documents, by which he can prove that he is a bona fide citizen of India and not a foreigner. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to contest the proceeding and to prove his nationality. 4. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and order matters has vehemently opposed the prayer made in this writ petition for interference with the impugned opinion on the ground of deliberate and wilful default on part of the petitioner to participate in the proceeding even after due service of notice. It has been submitted that as the petitioner has failed to appear and participate in the proceeding, the petitioner, having not approached the learned Tribunal for setting aside the ex parte opinion within thirty days by showing cause, as prescribed under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. 5. Considered the materials available in the record and also considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. The Court also takes note of the fact that the proceeding of F.T. Case No. 123/2007 was kept “filed” vide order dated 17.04.2015. Thereafter, it Page No.# 4/5 was resumed vide order dated 10.06.2022, pursuant to judgment and order dated 14.05.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 6280/2016 – Tuta Mia @ Tota Mia, 2018 (3) GLT 652. Thereafter, notice was issued and duly served in accordance with the provisions of Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Therefore, the order dated 25.10.2022 and 08.11.2023, passed by the learned Tribunal, regarding due service of notice, cannot be faulted with. 7. The explanation tendered by the petitioner is that he had a temporary residence at Rong Nagar, which he had shifted to Chinargaon, and that both the area are under the under the same Howraghat Police Station. 8. As per the order dated 02.10.2011, the notice of the proceeding was duly served on the petitioner. As per order dated 15.09.2012 and 11.10.2012, the petitioner was present before the learned Tribunal. The attendance sheet of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal on 15.09.2012, 11.10.2012 and 25.03.2014 are available in the Tribunal’s record at pages 51, 52 and 53. On 25.03.2014, the petitioner had also filed a petition, bearing petition no. 2038, seeking further time for appearance and submission of documents. The said petition is available at page 54 of the TCR. It is also noted that due to the petitioner’s consistent and/or regular default in appearance, the learned Tribunal had been adjourning the matter, thereby giving sufficient time to the petitioner to defend himself in the case. However, the petitioner had not availed of the opportunity so given. 9. Therefore, this is not a case where the petitioner was totally unaware of the proceeding. 10. The provision of Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is quoted below:- Page No.# 5/5 11. Thus, in light of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that there was deliberate default on part of the petitioner to contest the proceeding despite receipt of notice. Moreover, though he was aware of the proceeding, the petitioner had changed his address without informing the Border Branch of Howraghat Police and the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the manner in which notice was served upon the petitioner, being in accordance with Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, no case has been made out by the petitioner for the Court to set aside the ex parte opinion, impugned in this writ petition. 12. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 13. The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s record along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant