Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010186272025 2025:GAU- AS:12670-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2930/2025 USMAN GANI @ MD USMAN ALI S/O LT. MOHAR KHA @ MOHAR KHAN @ MOHAR ALI, R/O VILL. DIGHALIDOBA, P.O. SALMARA, P.S. KAMPUR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION DEPTT. 4TH FLOOR BLOCK C ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST. NAGAON Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN 782001 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN, N BRAHMA,MR R I BHUYAN,MS. L WAJEEDA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 15-09-2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury,J) 1. Heard Ms. L. Wajeeda, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 5, Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, and Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The present Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is filed for condonation of the delay of 4472 days in filing the connected writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013. 3. The fact in a nutshell is that the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Nagaon, by an order dated 05.01.2013, passed in F.T.Case No. 98/2009, declared the applicant as a foreigner, who Page No.# 3/5 entered into Assam from the notified territories post 1971. Such a declaration, though, was challenged by the applicant in WP(C) No. 3989/2013 before this Court; however, learned Single Judge dismissed the same under its order dated 21.07.2015. Such determination was also challenged in an intra-Court appeal, i.e., WA No. 228/2015; however, it was also dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench under its order dated 28.08.2015. 4. The applicant projects that he is now intending to approach a competent Civil Court seeking a positive declaration of his citizenship; however, he could learn that a learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 256/2013, under its order dated 11.04.2013, already laid down that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to determine the citizenship of a person. Being situated thus, the applicant, now, intends to challenge the order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013, which is standing as a bar for him to approach the Civil Court seeking a positive declaration of his Indian citizenship. 5. The only ground pleaded in the application is that the applicant came to know about the order dated 11.04.2013, passed in WP(C) No. 256/2013, only on 31.05.2025. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the judgment above adversely affects the applicant's right to approach the Civil Court; therefore, the delay may be condoned. 6. By now, the law is well settled that the law of limitation is substantive in nature and the limitation periods cannot be extended on mere equitable consideration; the applicant must demonstrate reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable cause of delay. Though an inordinate delay, by itself, is not a bar to exercise its discretion; however, when the delay is inordinate and the explanation is vague, general, or illogical, the Court will Page No.# 4/5 refuse to condone such delay. 7. Yet another facet is that condonation cannot be granted merely for the reason that the applicant was not a party in the proceeding under challenge; the fact of not being a party may be relevant, but it is not, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate “sufficient cause”. The requirement remains that the applicant must explain the delay with particularity and so due diligence in seeking relief. 8. Now coming to the fact of the present case, admittedly, WA No. 228/2015 was dismissed on 28.08.2015, upholding the declaration of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Nagaon dated 05.01.2013 and admittedly, the applicant has decided to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration in the year 2025, i.e., after almost 12 years from the order passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal and nearly 10 years after the final decision rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench in WA No. 228/2015. Except stating that he was made aware of the order dated 11.04.2013 passed in WP(C) No.256/2013, only on 31.05.2025, no other explanation is given. The applicant bears the onus of explaining the delay, which the applicant has failed to do. Furthermore, the applicant waited 12 years to seek a declaration of his citizenship status in a Civil Court. 9. The effect of non-party status is to be examined in the context of whether the applicant acted promptly. In our considered opinion, the explanation that the applicant could learn that the law had already been laid down way back on 11.04.2013 in WP(C) No.256/2013, only on 31.05.2025, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the applicant was duly pursuing his right in the meantime, which culminated on 21.07.2015 in WA No. 228/2015. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the applicant has failed to Page No.# 5/5 show sufficient cause to condone the delay. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay of 4472 days fails. The application is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant