Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010189932025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5015/2025 KUHINOOR BEGUM D/O LT. ABDUL MOZID, W/O LT. ABUL HUSSAIN, R/O VILL- HAIDUBI, P.S.- BATADRAVA, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI- 1 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON P.S.- NAGAON P.O.- NAGAON DIST- NAGAON PIN-782001 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON P.S.- NAGAON P.O.- NAGAON DIST- NAGAON PIN-782001 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA Page No.# 2/3 NEW DELHI DELHI-1 6:THE STATE CO-ORDIANTOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A ALI, MR N ISLAM 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 01.09.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State; Ms. A Gayan, learned CGC and Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI). 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 26.06.2023, passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 6, Nagaon, Assam in F.T. Case No. NFT(6th) 1709/2017 in Reference FT Case No. 199/2017. 3. Taking notice of the fact that in the impugned opinion, the learned Tribunal has recorded to the effect that after filing of the written statement, the petitioner had entered into evidence to prove the facts pleaded in the written Page No.# 3/3 statements and thereafter, no steps was taken. The corresponding statement in the paragraph-5 of the writ petition is that the petitioner had submitted the written statement on 19.07.2022 and thereafter, she could not appear before the Tribunal because of her illness. However, U-turn has been taken by the petitioner to allege in paragraph-8 of the writ petition that the petitioner was absent because the notice was not duly served upon the petitioner. When the said contradictory stands is pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he prays to allow him to withdraw this writ petition. 4. As incorrect and false projection is made in the writ petition, to allow the writ petition to be withdrawn, would amount to giving premium to the petitioner of making of false statement in the writ petition. Nonetheless considering the issue of citizenship being involved, the prayer so made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reluctantly allowed. However, the Court is inclined to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the learned counsel for the petitioner, not to be recovered from the petitioner, which shall be deposited to the Benevolent Fund of the Gauhati High Court, Bar Association within a period of 15 days from date of the order. 5. Let a copy of this order sent to the Gauhati High Court Bar Association. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed on withdrawal with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant