Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010154642025 2025:GAU-AS:11635-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4090/2025 MEGJAN NESSA D/O ABDUL SHEIKH, W/O NAJU R/O VILLAGE-CHANDANPUR, P.S. KASUMARA, DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI- 1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.S. BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA PIN 781301 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA P.S. BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA PIN-781301. 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI Page No.# 2/5 NEW DELHI-1. 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A ALI, MR. M HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 29.08.2025 (R. Mazumdar, J) Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC; Ms. S.T. Khan, learned counsel on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 09.04.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 7, Barpeta, in Page No.# 3/5 Case No:- FT-828/17, corresponding to R/Case No. 6252/98, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. 3. The records of the Trial Court was called for by order dated 30.07.2025, which has been received. 4. Looking at the grievance raised by the petitioner, the matter is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceeding have been initiated upon a report by the Electoral Registration Officer of 47, Chenga LAC wherein a request was made to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta to make an enquiry as to whether Smt. Megjan, wife of Naju is a foreigner under IM(D)T Act, 1993/ Foreigners Act, 1946 and rules made there under. 6. On a reference being made to the Foreigners Tribunal thereafter, notice was issued in F.T. Case No. 828/17 to one Megjan, wife of Naju of vill- Chandanpur, under P.S-Kasumara. The report of the process server which is made available at annexure-3, page no. 19 of the writ petition, which is seen to be available in the TCR shows that the notice was received by one Omed Ali son of Bahar Ali on 19.03.2020. 7. The opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal at paragraph no. 2 records as follows:- 2.On perusal of the S/R dated 19.03.2020 it was found that notice was served upon the son of O.P Omed Ali son of Bahar Ali and Omed Ali have accepted the notice on behalf O.P and put his signature on the said notice. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of ‘Naju’ and she does not have any son but has only 4 (four) daughter born out of the wedlock. Therefore, the question of her receiving the notice Page No.# 4/5 from the Tribunal does not arise as it was handed over to one Omed Ali son of Bahar Ali, who is a stranger to her. 9. We have perused the Trial Court Record and verified that indeed the notice was served upon one Omed Ali son of Bahar Ali. The learned counsel for the FT matters has contended that the notice appears to have been properly served as Umed Ali had claimed to be her son and also signed on the said notice. 10. Keeping in view the assertion of the petitioner that she is the wife of one Naju which is also reflected in the notice and also keeping in view her assertion that she does not have any son, the service of notice upon the present petitioner cannot be said to be complete when the notice was served upon one Omed Ali son of Bahar Ali. 11. We are of the view that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to effectively put forth her defence before the learned Tribunal in F.T. Case No. 828/17. 12. Therefore, we deem it fit to set aside the opinion dated 09.04.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner Tribunal, 7, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 828/17 and remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for rendering a fresh opinion by giving opportunity of defence to the writ petitioner. 13. The writ petitioner shall appear before the learned Tribunal within 20 (twenty) days from today with a certified copy of this order, and submit her written statement before the learned Tribunal. In the event if the petitioner does not appear before the said learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to pass a separate and fresh opinion in accordance with law. 14. The petition stands allowed at the motion stage without issuance of Page No.# 5/5 notice on the respondents. 15. The TCR be returned back forthwith to the learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant