Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010170262025 2025:GAU-AS:13772-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4419/2025 AMIR UDDIN @ MOHAMMAD AMIR UDDIN S/O- LALU MIA, VILL.- TARAPUR CHA BAGAN, P.S. - LAKHIMPUR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM. PIN- 788098 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, DELHI - 01. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN (NRC) ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR BANFHOOL NAGAR DISPUR GUWAHATI-38. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) Page No.# 2/10 KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. PIN- 782003. 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. PIN. 782003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C DAS, MR. H RAHMAN,MR S HUSSAIN 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 : 15.10.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. R.C. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for the respondent no.1; Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI, representing respondent no.2; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters, representing respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, representing respondent no. 4. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin, has assailed the ex parte opinion dated 07.02.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in F.T. Case No. 12/2010 [arising out of Police Case No. 38/09], thereby declaring the petitioner, namely, Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin, son of Late Nur Islam, resident of Village Dodo Colony, P.S. Bokajan (now under jurisdiction of P.S. Khatkhati, Dist. Karbi Page No.# 3/10 Anglong, to be a foreigner as he did not contest the case. 3) In this writ petition, it has been pleaded that pursuant to the said opinion, the petitioner was taken into custody on 24.05.2025 and his whereabouts was not known. Therefore, one Rashid Uddin, son of Johor Uddin, who had projected himself to be the nephew of the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(Crl.) No. 21/2025 and pursuant to the order of this Court, the Court was informed that the present petitioner is lodged in Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, namely, Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin, is the son of Lalu Mia, resident of Village- Tarapur Cha Bagan, P.S. Lakhipur, Dist. Cachar. However, ex parte opinion in F.T. Case No. 12/2010 [arising out of Police Case No. 38/09] was passed against one Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin, son of Late Nur Islam, resident of Village Dodo Colony, P.S. Bokajan (now under jurisdiction of P.S. Khatkhati), Dist. Karbi Anglong. Therefore, it has strenuously been submitted that the petitioner has been taken into custody due to mistaken identity. It has been submitted that the petitioner had never been served with any notice of the proceeding. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has produced all the relevant documents to show that his identity is different from the identity of the suspected foreigner and therefore, in the event this Court is prima facie satisfied with his different identity, he would be ready and willing to produce all his relevant documents before the learned Foreigners Tribunal if so permitted. 5) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the habeas corpus petition, being W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025, that was filed by one Rashid Uddin, who had projected himself to be the nephew of the Page No.# 4/10 petitioner, the State respondents had demonstrated that the petitioner was the proceedee before the learned Foreigners Tribunal and it has been also submitted that the counsel for the present case was also the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025. Accordingly, the records of W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025, disposed of by order dated 27.06.2025, has been called for the perusal of the Court. 6) It would be relevant to quote hereinbelow paragraphs 3 to 8 of the order dated 27.06.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025 for ready reference:- “4. Contesting the claim made by the petitioner in respect of his uncle, namely, Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin, the learned Senior Govt. advocate has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3, where a stand has been taken that the birth certificate of Md. Amir Uddin, produced by the writ petitioner, vide additional affidavit bearing registered No. DS/BD/B-3362-15 dated 25.05.2015, has been reported to be fake by the issuing authority. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the other documents were prepared on the basis of fake birth certificate, the authenticity of the EPIC, Aadhaar card etc. is also disputed. 5. The further stands has been taken by the respondent no.3 that Md. Amir Uddin, son of Late Nur Islam was declared to be a foreigner by the learned Member Foreigners’ Tribunal, Diphu vide ex parte opinion dated 07.02.2016 in FT Case No.12/10. Accordingly, the learned Senior Govt. advocate has submitted that there is good ground for police personnel to apprehend Md. Amir Uddin who is the proceedee in case referred above, and is a declared foreign national. 6. The learned Senior Govt. Advocate has also submitted that the applicant, having disputed the identity of the person apprehended i.e. that of his uncle, by stating that he was not the proceedee, the respondent no. 3, in his affidavit-in- opposition filed on 16.06.2025, has produced a copy of the opinion issued by the Director, State Finger Print Bureau, CID, Assam. As per the said report, upon comparison of the fingerprints of the detained person and that of the proceedee, namely Md. Amir Uddin, it has been opined that the fingerprint marked as “B-3” in Ext. “B-3” (vide No. 946 dated 03.12.2014) is identical with the left thumb impression of Md. Amir Uddin, marked as “S-6” in Ext. “A-1”. Thus, it is the stand of the State that the arrested person and the proceedee are one and the same individual. Page No.# 5/10 7. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's uncle was arrested without any just and proper cause, it is noted that the State has produced a copy of an ex parte opinion dated 07.02.2016, passed against Md. Amir Uddin, the projected uncle of the petitioner in FT Case No. 12/10, as referred to above. Upon disclosure that he has been declared a foreigner and is presently lodged at the Detention Camp, Matia, Goalpara, nothing further survives in this habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition stands closed. 8. Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the petitioner or his projected uncle in any other proceeding that may be instituted.” 7) Therefore, it is seen that in the proceedings of W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025, the issue of identity of the petitioner herein, namely, Amir Uddin @ Mohammad Amir Uddin was raised and the State could prima facie satisfy the Court that the petitioner and the proceedee of F.T. Case No. 12/10 was same and one person. 8) Moreover, in paragraph 5 of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has made a candid admission that notice issued by the learned Tribunal was served on him, which is in-verbatim reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “5. That, the petitioner begs to state that the reference was made illegally as indicated above and based on such illegal reference case this case was registered against him, alleging that he had illegally entered in to the Assam after 25.03.1971 from Bangladesh. Notice was also issued by the Tribunal in the name of the petitioner and the notice was served on the petitioner but the petitioner didn’t aware about the same. The concern police was illegally arrested and detain the petitioner and which are being absolutely violated the fundamental rights heed by article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and violation of u/s 47 of the BNSS, 2023 in regard to arrested to petitioner. However the petitioner he was absolutely unaware in regard to the Ex- Parte opinion passed by the Ld. Tribunal, whereas the petitioner father name isn’t match as per the Ld. Tribunal order.” 9) Moreover, in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated, inter alia, that – “… As per the opinion the notice has been served Page No.# 6/10 to the petitioner in connection above cited F.T. Case but the petitioner isn’t aware about the notice which has been served to the petitioner …” 10) Thus, there is a clear admission that the notice issued by the learned Foreigners Tribunal was served on the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner was not the person on whom notice was issued, there was no reason for him to accept the notice. Moreover, the petitioner could have informed the learned Foreigners Tribunal regarding wrong service of notice. 11) On a perusal of the Tribunal’s records of F.T. Case No. 12/10, that was called for, it is seen that the notice issued to the petitioner is available at page 14 of the record and the notice was served to the petitioner, who has received it by acknowledging it by affixing his “left-hand thumb impression”, which is available at the back-page of page no. 14. Moreover, the police personnel, serving the notice has recorded in his service report dated 15.07.2014 to the effect that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice as it was not for him, but the Gaonburha (now Gaon Pradhan) had said that the petitioner was the suspect as there is no other person named Amir Uddin in Dodo Colony. 12) It is also seen in the Tribunal’s record that on 24.07.2014, the petitioner, through one Md. Mannan Ali, son of Late Hanmani Ali, resident of Dado Colony, P.S. Khatkhati, had prayed for adjournment as he was suffering from viral fever. Accordingly, the case was fixed on 23.09.2014 for written statement. On 24.09.2014, the case record was put-up before the learned Tribunal, and Smt. Sikha Baruah, thereby informing the learned Tribunal that due to bundh call on 23.09.2014, the petitioner could not appear and prayed for adjournment. On 03.12.2024, the petitioner was present before the learned Tribunal and by filing petition no. 946, prayed for adjournment, which was Page No.# 7/10 allowed. On 30.01.2015, Smt. Sikha Baruah, Advocate had filed a petition, numbered as petition no. 1266, for adjournment, which was allowed. The petitioner had remained absent, unrepresented and without steps on 23.02.2015, 17.03.2015 and 18.04.2015, but appeared on 16.05.2015, and his prayer for adjournment was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner had again remained absent, unrepresented and without steps on 30.05.2015, 19.06.2015, 15.07.2015, 17.08.2015, and 31.08.2015. Thereafter the next date of the proceeding was fixed on 07.02.2016, on which date, ex parte opinion was rendered against the petitioner by the learned Tribunal. 13) As mentioned hereinbefore, the forensic examination of the LTI (left hand thumb impression), as available in the Tribunal’s record has been identified to be of the petitioner, which is contained in the extract of order dated 27.06.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025. Moreover, the petitioner, in paragraph 5 of this instant writ petition has admitted due service of notice. Therefore, the projection made by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 5 and 13 of the writ petition that he was not aware of the ex parte opinion against him in F.T. Case No. 12/2010, can only be attributed to willful and deliberate negligence, default, failure and/or abstinence on part of the petitioner to appear and to contest the said proceeding. 14) Once a notice of the learned Tribunal is served on the proceedee, it is his/ her responsibility to obtain certified copy of any order or final opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunals and there is no requirement under the law requiring the Foreigners Tribunals to send a copy of the opinion to the proceedee at his last place of residence. 15) The petitioner has, after being detained by the law enforcing agency of the State upon being declared foreign national, has now woken up Page No.# 8/10 from deep slumber to assail the impugned opinion dated 07.02.2016 by filing this writ petition on 30.07.2025, i.e. after 9 years, 5 months, 23 days (or, 3461 days). 16) In this case, the petitioner is being represented by the same set of counsel, who were representing the writ petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025. However, in this writ petition no attempt has been made by the petitioner to counter the observations made by this Court in the order dated 27.06.2025, passed in W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025, with regard to (a) the thumb impression of the petitioner and the proceedee in F.T. Case No. 12/2010; and (b) fake birth certificate. 17) It is noticed that the petitioner has not annexed the certified copy of the impugned opinion. However, from the endorsement made in the copy of the said order, it appears that the LDA-cum-Accountant of the Foreigners Tribunal had affixed his signature and rubber stamp on the same on 06.05.2016. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation, a presumption can be drawn that the petitioner was holding an uncertified copy of the opinion dated 07.02.2016 that was issued on 06.05.2016. Accordingly, there appears to be an inordinate delay and laches in assailing the said opinion after a lapse of 9 years, 5 months, 23 days (or, 3461 days). No attempt has been made by the petitioner to give any explanation regarding the inordinate delay and laches in approaching the Court. 18) By entertaining the writ petition after a huge unexplained delay, in the opinion of the Court, would amount to giving premium to the petitioner for making initial appearance before the learned Tribunal and thereafter, not contesting the proceeding. Page No.# 9/10 19) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has all the requisite documents to prove that he is a citizen of the Country and not a foreigner. In this regard, the petitioner had an opportunity to file his written statement with all his documents to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which he has failed to discharge. 20) The Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, cannot examine any record that was not produced by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. Yet, the Court has examined the documents annexed to the writ petition to see if the petitioner has annexed any documents along with the writ petition which could prima facie show if the petitioner has sufficient documents to show that he is a bona fide citizen of India. However, a stand-alone photocopy of the certified copy of (i) the electoral roll of 1966 (Annexure-II) containing the name of Kalai Mia, father- Ajmat Ali of village- Ujan Tarapur; (ii) the electoral roll of 1975 (Annexure-III) containing the name of Lalu Mia, father- Kalai Mia of village- Ujan Tarapur; and (iii) the electoral roll of 2017 (Annexure-IV) containing the name of Amir Uddin, father- Lalu Mia of village- Tarapur Cha Bagan, are not sufficient to establish the link of the petitioner with his projected father. The petitioner was 18 years of age in the electoral roll of 2017 (Annexure-IV), therefore, he was born in the year 1999, but the electoral roll of petitioner’s projected father is not shown till the last elections before the year 1999. Moreover, the petitioner has not divulged any particulars of his projected parents and grandparents, siblings of his parents, or regarding his own siblings, or where they were born and brought-up. Thus, in other words, the picture of the entire family of the petitioner is not available in any document or bunch of documents. The Income Tax PAN Card (Annexure-VIII); Aadhaar Card (Annexure-IX); and Elector Photo Identity card (Annexure-X) are all post opinion Page No.# 10/10 document and therefore, was required to be proved before the learned Foreigners Tribunal in accordance with law, which was not done and therefore, the Court is unable to place reliance on a post-opinion document. 21) Hence, this writ petition fails on merit and also on the ground of delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion. 22) Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage without issuing notice upon the respondents. 23) There shall be no order as to cost. 24) The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s records along with a copy of this order so as to enable the learned Tribunal to make it a part of the record for future reference. 25) The learned standing counsel for the petitioner shall also transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. 26) Let the records of W.P.(Crl.) 21/2025 (disposed of) be returned back to the concerned section. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant