Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010142962025 2025:GAU-AS:9339-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3965/2025 ISLAM UDDIN LASKAR S/O LATE ABDUL LATIF LASKAR, VILL- BARUNCHERRA FOREST VILLAGE, P.O.- KUKICHERRA, P.S.- KATLICHERRA, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788161 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 5:THE MEMBER FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL HAILAKANDI Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM PIN-788151 6:THEE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 7:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, MR. A K HANNAN 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 MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 21.07.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Kalita, 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 writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 07.12.2020, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Hailakandi in Review Petition No. 1/2020, thereby dismissing the said review petition. 3. The case projected by the petitioner is that by ex parte opinion dated Page No.# 3/6 29.03.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hailakandi, in F.T. Case No. 14/2016, corresponding to Katlichara P.S. Enquiry No. 03/2016, he was declared to be a foreigner. The petitioner has assailed the said opinion by filing WP(C) No. 3843/2017, and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 20.12.2017, in view of the alternative remedy available, the writ petition was closed by directing the petitioner to exhaust his remedy under Order 3 A (1) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed a misc. case before the said learned Tribunal bearing petition No. 8/2018 dated 18.01.2018, Order 3A(1) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964. However, the said learned Tribunal, by order dated 05.03.2018, having not found sufficient cause for not appearing before the learned Tribunal in connection with F.T. Case No. 14/2016, rejected the prayer and the misc. case was disposed of. Against the order dated 05.03.2018, the petitioner filed an application under order 3C(2) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, read with section 114 of the CPC for review of the order dated 05.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hailakandi in F.T. Case No. 14/2016. The said review petition, which was registered as Review Petition No. 1/2020 was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2020, holding that the review petition was devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the said order dated 07.12.2020 is assailed in this writ petition. 5. From the materials available on record, it appears that there was a delay of 970 days in preferring the review petition and that from 07.12.2020 till this petition was filed on 24.06.2025, there has been a delay of 1660 days. 6. Accordingly, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the maintainability of the writ petition as the order passed in the Review Petition No. 1/2020 dated 07.12.2020, has been challenged after 1660 days. Page No.# 4/6 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in paragraph 8 to 10 of this writ petition to project that though the petitioner has sufficient documents to establish that he is an Indian citizen, but the petitioner was not informed by his learned counsel about the dismissal of the review petition by order of 07.12.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a poor village person and resides in a remote forest village, and that the petitioner was dependent on the advice of his learned counsel that his petition would be allowed, and that only after the petitioner was apprehended by the police on 27.05.2025, the petitioner came to learn that the review petition was dismissed. 8. It appears from the statement made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the petitioner was released on 30.05.2025, on condition to appear before the police station daily, and that the petitioner has projected that he is complying with such condition. 9. Also had Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters, who has opposed the writ petition. 10. In this case, the petitioner is aware of an ex parte opinion dated 29.03.2017, declaring him to be a foreigner. The said order was assailed before this Court and thereafter, pursuant to orders of the Court, the petitioner had appeared before the jurisdictional Tribunal. However, the said Review Petition number 1/2020 was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2020. 11. The explanation tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph-9 of the writ petition is that the dismissal of the review petition was not informed to the petitioner by the learned counsel and the petitioner is a poor village person of remote forest village and he “thought” that the petition Page No.# 5/6 was allowed, as per the assurance of his counsel. 12. In the considered opinion of the Court, even if the petitioner had “thought” that his review petition was allowed, then also there was a requirement of the petitioner to appear before the learned Tribunal to file his written statement to contest the proceeding. Neither the petitioner took steps to become aware of the orders that was passed in Review Petition No.1/2020, and resultantly, he did not assail the said order within a reasonable time thereafter. 13. The only explanation that the petitioner is residing at a remote forest village and he is a poor person and that he thought that the petition was allowed, in the opinion of the Court, is not considered as a good explanation of the delay so as to issue notice in this petition. 14. The delay and laches of 1660 days is found to be without any good cogent or reliable explanation. 15. Although no period of limitation is prescribed to entertain a writ petition, but the delay and laches in this case in approaching the Court to challenge the impugned order, passed in Review Petition No. 1/2020 is 570 days and the resultant delay in assailing the ex parte opinion dated 29.03.2017 as on 24.06.2025, the date on which the writ petition was filed would be 1660 days. 16. In view of the inadequate explanation of the delay and laches, the Court is disinclined to issue notice. 17. Accordingly, the petition is found to be not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 18. The learned standing counsel for the FT matters shall send a downloaded copy of this order to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, Hailakandi Page No.# 6/6 to bring the order to the notice of the said learned Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant