Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010159342025 2025:GAU- AS:10117-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4149/2025 ABDUL RAHIM @ RAHIM ALI @ RAHIM BADSHA S/O NASER ALI (FATHER) AND RAHITAN NESSA (MOTHER), VILL- KAYEMARI, P.O.- ANANDA BAZAR, MOUZA- GOBARDHANA, P.S.- SALBARI (ERSTWHILE BARPETA ROAD), DIST- BAKSA (ERSTWHILE BARPETA), ASSAM, PIN-781315 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN BHAWAN ASHOK ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 5:THE DISTRICCT COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/4 BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED, T UDDIN,MS N AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 01.08.2025 (K. R. Surana,J) Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M .R. Adhikari, learned CGC, Ms. N. Bedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI, Ms. A. Verma, 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 opinion dated 12.06.2020, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal 9th, Barpeta, Assam in F.T. 9th (BPT) Case No. 137/2018, arising out of S.P.Ref. IM(D)T.Case No. 20/03, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. 3. As there is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court to assail the impugned opinion, we had requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to Page No.# 3/4 address us on the issue of delay and laches. While addressing us on the said issue of delay and laches, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the initial delay was due to Covid-19 situation. 4. It was submitted that thereafter, the petitioner took some time to collect the documents. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner he has changed his version to say that the petitioner had lost communication with his learned counsel for which the copies could not be collected. He also submits that the certified copies were not collected by the petitioner but it was received by his learned counsel. The aforesaid statements appear to be incorrect. 5. On the contrary, a statement has been made in paragraph-45 of the writ petition, which is sworn and verified to be “ true to be true to the petitioner knowledge of the petitioner is to the following effect:- 45). That, the petitioner begs to state that there is delay in filing this writ petition initially due to the situation Covid-19, and moreover it takes some time to obtain the certified copies of documents from the Learned Tribunal below and to obtain other documents and arrange fees for the Advocate. Moreover, he could not communicate with his engaged Advocate to get instruction for filing the instant writ petition, which caused some delay in filing this writ petition and that may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. As the statement appearing in paragraph-45 of the writ petition, which one contrary to the oral statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar, and despite the Bench repeatedly informing the learned counsel that he was making a false statement, he insisted on his oral said statement. 7. The certified copy of the impugned opinion is at Annexure-29 (page 114 to 123). The copy application was made sometime in July 2020, and the Page No.# 4/4 certified copy was made ready on 10.08.2020 and was collected on 10.08.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of the opinion dated 12.06.2020, when it was pronounced and in event, on 10.08.2020, when certified copy of opinion was collected. Thus, the delay of nearly 5 (five) years has not been satisfactorily explained. 8. Therefore, as the delay and laches occurring on part of the petitioner to present this writ petition to assail the impugned opinion dated 12.06.2020, is not found to be properly explained the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, which we accordingly do. 9. The Court is inclined to record that as an incorrect statement made in the Bar affects the administration of justice, the Court has refrained itself from issuing process against the learned counsel for the petitioner for committing contempt of Court. 10. Resultantly, in view of the inconsistent statement made at the bar compared to what has been stated in paragraph- 45 of the writ petition, the delay and laches, having not been properly explained, the writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant