Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010189242025 2025:GAU-AS:11856-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4945/2025 TAFIKUL HAQUE @ JOWFIKAL HAUQ S/O ABDUL KUDDUS, R/O VILL- NEGHERIBILL MUSLIM GAON, P.S.- MERAPANI, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785615 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE ASSAM STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785621 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-78562 Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MS. K DAS,MR. F A AHMED 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 O R D E R 29.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. F.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Ms. A. Verma, 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, namely, Tafikul Haque @ Jowfikal Hauq, has assailed a part of the ex-parte common opinion dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam, in so far as relates to case at Serial No. 18 being Case No. FTG(D) 449/2010, corresponding to S.P.’s Enquiry No. 49/2008, in the case of State Vs. Jowfikal Hauq. By the said ex-parte common opinion, amongst others, the service of notice of the proceedings to the petitioner was accepted to be duly served under Order 3 (5) (g) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and the petitioner, amongst others, were declared to be foreigners who had illegally entered into the territory of India Page No.# 3/7 (Assam) after 25.03.1971, without any valid documents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the photocopy of the certified copy of the notice and service report regarding service of notice issued by the Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat in Case No. FTG (D) 449/10, on the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure-K (1) to the writ petition whereby, it is submitted that as per process server’s report dated 20.07.2018, the notice could not be served at the given address and notice was hanged in the Gaonburah’s Notice Board and the service was returned. 4. It is projected that subsequently the said proceeding was transferred for disposal before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat and the proceeding was re-registered as FTG(D) 449/10. By referring to the process server’s report annexed as Annexure-K (1) to the writ petition, it is stated that as per the process server’s report the notice of the Tribunal was attached to the notice board of the Gaonburha and accordingly, it was reported that notice was served and returned to the learned Tribunal. 5. Based on the process server’s report, the learned Tribunal had recorded at paragraph no. 3 of the impugned opinion, inter alia, that notice to the petitioner was pasted on the conspicuous place of their last place of residence i.e., at the outer part of the house where they used to stay earlier on rental basis because they could not be traced out at the given address i.e., present address of the proceedee. It is also mentioned in the impugned opinion that the service of notices were duly witnessed by the owner of the house and renowned person of the localities concerned. The learned Tribunal has also referred to the provision of Order 3 (5) (g) of the Foreigners (Tribunals), Order, 1964 which mandates that the copy of the notice is required to be pasted in a Page No.# 4/7 conspicuous place of his/ her residence, witnessed by one respectable person of the locality. Accordingly, it is held that the finding of service, as recorded by the learned Member of the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat is contrary to the contents of the photocopy of the certified copy of the process server’s report, available at Annexure-K (1) of the writ petition. 6. Although, the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters has vehemently opposed the entertaining of the present writ petition on the ground that in the reference, the address of the petitioner is given as Vill- Negheribill Muslim Gaon, under P.S-Merapani, District-Golaghat, it is evident from the cause-title of the present writ petition that after the enquiry was made, the petitioner has shifted his residence to Vill Merapani Narayanpur, Mouza- Ghiladhari, Sub-Division-Golaghat. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the change of address had happened without notifying it to the Border Police, the ex parte opinion rendered against the petitioner is not likely to be interfered with. 7. There is no dispute that the enquiry was made against the petitioner at Vill- Negheribill Muslim Gaon, under P.S-Merapani, District-Golaghat and therefore, it is quite possible that the petitioner, after the enquiry, had left the said residence. Nonetheless, the process server ought to have served the process strictly in accordance with Order 3 (5) (g) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Any deviance of the manner of service ought to have been by virtue of orders passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. In this case had the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat referred to the contents of the process server’s report and had justified the manner of service to be in accordance with Page No.# 5/7 Order 3 (5) (g) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, it would have been another matter altogether. In this case, contrary to the contents of the process server’s report, the learned Tribunal, an inconsistent and incorrect finding has been recorded by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat that the notices issued, amongst others, to the petitioner was displayed/ pasted in a conspicuous place of his last place of his residence i.e., at the outer part of the house where they used stay earlier on rental basis. This being contrary to the contents of the photocopy of the process server’s report. 9. Resultantly, the notice ought not to have been accepted to have been duly served as per Order 3 (5) (g) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 10. This, in the considered opinion of the Court had vitiated the ex parte opinion dated 21.12.2018, only in respect of the present petitioner namely, Tafikul Haque @ Jowfikal Hauq, who is the proceedee at Serial No. 18 of the said impugned opinion. 11. Resultantly, at the motion stage and without issuance of notice on the respondents, the ex parte opinion dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam, is set aside in respect of the petitioner namely, Tafikul Haque @ Jowfikal Hauq, without effecting the said ex- parte opinion in so far as above proceedees in the common opinion are concerned. 12. The petitioner, who is duly represented by his learned counsel, shall appear before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam within a period of 20 (twenty) days from the date of this order and on his appearance shall file his written statement of defence. Page No.# 6/7 13. 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 petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this order before the said learned Tribunal. 15. The Registry shall also communicate a copy of this order by e-mail to the learned Tribunal at the following e-mail address of the said learned Tribunal:- memftjorhat55@gmail.com 16. The petitioner shall also produce certified copy of the order before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Golaghat to bring the order to the notice of the said authority. 17. Before parting with the record, it would be relevant to make an observation that in respect of the same ex-parte common opinion dated 21.12.2018, this is the third matter, which has been taken up today, the others being WP(C) No. 4857/2025 – Ainul Haque @ Inul Haque –Vs- Union of India and Others, and WP(C) No. 4923/2025 – Arfinara Begum @ Alsi Begum –Vs- Union of India and Others and in view of the incorrect appreciation of the service report by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, all the three writ petitions had to be allowed by remanding the matter for a fresh opinion, and, therefore, a short cut adopted by the learned Member has resulted in delay in the disposal of the cases. 18. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands Page No.# 7/7 allowed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant