Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010190262025 2025:GAU- AS:11897-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5099/2025 MD ALI HUSSAIN S/O LT. EKLASH MIYA, VILL- NAM DOBOKA PATHAR, P.S.- DOBOKA, DIST- NAGAON/HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001 2:STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT (B) DISPUR GUWHAATI-781006 3:STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWHAATI-781005 4:ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAAD DELHI-110001 5:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HOJAI Page No.# 2/6 DIST- HOJAI ASSAM-782442 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) HOJAI ASSAM-782442 7:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DOBOKA POLICE STATION THANA ROAD DOBOKA TOWN DIST- HOJAI-782440 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR C GOGOI, MR. NOOR KUTUB ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 03.09.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned CGC; G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Additional Senior 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 24.07.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Nagaon No.10th, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, in F.T.(D) Case No. 1043/2015, arising out of SPs F.T. Case No. 830/2012, thereby, declaring the petitioner to be foreigner, Page No.# 3/6 who entered into territory of India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 without any valid document. 3. In order to explain the delay and laches in assailing the ex parte opinion dated 24.07.2017 by filing a writ petition on 21.08.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an uneducated and illiterate person and he had engaged an advocate on his behalf, but the engaged counsel did not file a written statement and lead evidence and therefore, the ex parte opinion was rendered against the petitioner. 4. It is also projected that due to poor financial condition, the petitioner could not travel to Hojai to acquire information about the case and therefore, as he was not informed of the outcome of the proceedings, no steps was taken. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was taken into custody and sent to the detention camp at Tezpur. However during the COVID-19 pandemic period, the petitioner was released from the detention camp and on an impression that he has already served sentence, resume his daily wage labour work and thus, failed to challenge the impugned opinion within time. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner has sufficient documents, which are annexed to this writ petition to ensure that he is a bona fide citizen of India and not a foreigner. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for granting one opportunity to the petitioner to prove his citizenship. 6. In this regard it is further submitted that while the petitioner was a minor of about two years, his father had deserted his mother and therefore, the petitioner along with his mother started residing at the house of the maternal grandfather. It is submitted that the name of the mother has been mutated in respect of the land of her father as a legal heir. Page No.# 4/6 7. The learned standing counsel for the FT matters has opposed the entertaining of a later writ petition to assail the ex parte opinion dated 24.07.2017. 8. Considered the materials available on the record and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the nature of the explanation tendered by the petitioner for the delay, the same is found to be unacceptable for the very reason that as per statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, petitioner expected his learned counsel to take steps in the matter and to lead evidence and to file written statement. It is his admitted case that he could not travel to inquire about the status of the case himself. However, the petitioner has failed to show that without appropriate instructions and his signature in the written statement and without swearing an evidence on affidavit, how he expect his learned counsel to file a written statement or evidence on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In this writ petition there is no averment that the petitioner had handed over to his learned counsel all the relevant documents and had provided the learned counsel a prepared written statement and evidence on affidavit duly sworn by him and therefore, there was any default on part of his learned counsel to file the written statement and evidence on affidavit of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he had provided his learned counsel with sufficient and appropriate instructions as to how the details of the proceedings could be communicated to him. 10. Under such circumstances, the Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner is in default of participating in the proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that he was apprehended after rendition of the opinion sometime in the year 2018 and as per Annexure-D to the writ Page No.# 5/6 petition, after being apprehended the petitioner was sent to the detention centre vide forwarding letter dated 10.05.2018. Admittedly, the petitioner was released during the COVID-19 period in 2020, as stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. During the time when he was apprehended and forwarded on 10.05.2018 as well as on being released on bail in the year 2020, the petitioner was aware that he was taken into custody pursuant to the opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal. Therefore five year delay and laches in challenging the impugned opinion, disentitles the petitioner for the purpose of the maintaining the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. 11. In the case of Ijjat Ali v. The Union of India & 5 Ors., WP(C) 8361/2019, decided on 12.10.2020, it is held that once sufficient opportunity is granted to the proceedee to contest the proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal, granting of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. 12. Moreover, considering that the learned counsel for the petitioner is referring to the citizenship right of the petitioner, the Court has examined the various documents appended to the writ petition only to find that there are varying age discrepancies in various documents with regard to the age of the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has declared his age to be 55 years. However, as per the translated copy of the school certificate (Annexure C), the petitioner was certified to be 9 years old as on 31.12.1994, which makes his date of birth on or about 31.12.1983. 13. As per the voters list of 1997, which is the first voters list in which the name of the petitioner appeared, his age is stated to be 22 years, which would make his approximate year of birth in the year 1975 and in the voters list of 2005, the age of the petitioner is reflected as 23, which would make his birth Page No.# 6/6 year in 1982. As per the voters list of 2011, the age of the petitioner is 33 and therefore, his year of birth would be 1978. In the voters list of 2014, the age of the petitioner is 34, makes his year of birth on 1980. Therefore, the documents relied upon by the petitioner does not inspire the confidence of the Court. 14. Be that as it may, as the primary authority to examine the documents in respect of suspected foreigners, is the Foreigners Tribunal, the Court does not express any opinion as to the correctness or veracity of any of the documents annexed to the writ petition and referred to above. 15. The explanation tendered by the petitioner for the delay and laches does not inspire the confidence of the Court because after the opinion by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, the petitioner was taken into custody in 2018 and thereafter released in 2020. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the petitioner was not aware why he was detained. The failure to assail the impugned opinion within a reasonable time has disentitled the petitioner from maintaining the present challenge after a lapse of six years. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice to the respondent. 16. The Registry shall transmit the copy of the order to the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Nagaon No.10th, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai so as to make it a part of the record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant