Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010170342025 2025:GAU- AS:11088-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4715/2025 FAZILA KHATOON WIFE OF MD. OMAR ALI, DAUGHTER OF LATE INTAZ ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HATIJUJUA, P.O - HATIJUJUA, P.S. JAJORI, NAGAON, DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM). VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF POLITICAL AND HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRAR OF CITIZEN ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH KAMRUP(METRO) Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM GUWAHATI-781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM PIN-784001 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON P.O AND DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K DAS, M KHATONIAR,MS. S DAS 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 MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 20.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P.N. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate for the State 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 06.06.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st, Nagaon, in F.T. Case No. 8387/12, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. Page No.# 3/4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the impugned opinion was passed, the petitioner was taken into custody on 09.05.2019 and remained in custody till 21.07.2022, whereafter she was released on bail due to the Covid-19 pandemic pursuant to orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020 (In Re: Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons). It is further submitted that upon being released on bail, the petitioner has been regularly appearing before the Officer-in-Charge of Jajori Police Station every week. It is stated that while the petitioner was so appearing, she was again apprehended on 28.05.2025, taken into custody, and thereafter sent to the Transit Camp at Matia, Goalpara. 4. As the impugned opinion has been assailed after more than about 8 years, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue of delay and laches in assailing the said ex parte opinion. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner comes from a very poor family and could not arrange for the necessary resource to engage a counsel and pray for bail or to challenge the impugned opinion and accordingly, he submits that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner has sufficient documents to establish that she is not a foreign national, but an Indian citizen. 5. The learned standing counsel for the FT matters has opposed the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay. 6. The explanation tendered by the petitioner in this writ petition is that she remained absent in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal due to ignorance and lack of knowledge, and thus an ex parte opinion came to be passed against her. It is further seen that though the petitioner was apprehended after passing of the impugned opinion and had remained in Page No.# 4/4 custody for about 3 years before being released on bail, she did not take any steps to challenge the impugned opinion. 7. It is also noted that the petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the ex parte opinion dated 06.06.2017 on 28.05.2018, and the same was made available to her on 20.06.2018. Therefore, though the petitioner has held the certified copy for more than 7 years, she allowed the said opinion to remain unchallenged. 8. If a challenge to the ex parte opinion dated 06.06.2017 is entertained at this belated stage after a period of 8 years, it would amount to granting premium to the petitioner for the delay in assailing the said opinion. The explanation offered for the delay and laches is not sufficient, and the causes shown do not satisfy the Court as a due explanation thereof. Accordingly, on the ground of delay and laches alone, this writ petition stands dismissed. 9. The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order to the Court of learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1st, Nagaon to be made a part of record of F.T. Case No. 8387/12. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant