Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010196562025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5127/2025 JORINA BEGUM @ JORINA KHATUN W/O ABDUL ROSHID, D/O LATE JURAN ALI, R/O VILL- SATIPUR, P.O.- DHALIGAON, P.S.- KAJALGAON, DIST- CHIRANG, ASSAM, P/R/A VILL- BANSALI, P.O.- KALAPANI, P.S.- MANKACHAR, DIST- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DEELHI-110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN-781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHIRANG DIST- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-783390 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) CHIRANG P.O.- CHIRANG DIST- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-783390 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF KAJALGAON POLICE STATION DIST- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-78339 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N DEKA, MR A.K. HAJONG,MR. S. K. CHAKMA,MR I CHAKMA 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 Date : 05-09-2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner as Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal, Mr. M. Islam, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC. 2. The petitioner, namely, Jorina Begum @ Jorina Khatun is the person on whom the notice of proceedings of Case No. 3709/08 was served on the Page No.# 3/5 basis of notice issued by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Chirrang. It would suffice to mention that the petitioner is projecting that she is not the intended proceedee for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various documents. 3. It is submitted that though the petitioner has prayed for determining as to whether the petitioner is the intended proceedee or not, the learned Tribunal had directed the petitioner to file a written statement, which she perhaps not did. However, as the determination as to whether the petitioner is the intended proceedee, no orders were passed, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the said learned Tribunal by which the Petition No.89/2025 was rejected and dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said petition No.89/2025 was filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC for dismissal of the reference and to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. The prayer made in the said petition is as follows: “It is therefore prayed before the Hon’ble Tribunal to accept the instant application of the petitioner and issue notice to the opp. party and upon hearing of both parties the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to reject the referral order and thereby dismiss the instant proceeding against the petitioner and further be pleased to pass(s) any necessary order as your honour deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.” 5. It would be suffice to mention that though the said petition No.89/2025 was rejected by order dated 24.06.2025, but by subsequent order dated 02.07.2025, the petitioner was granted time for filing of the written statement. Page No.# 4/5 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the instructions received by her, the written statement of the petitioner has not been filed till now. 7. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the FT matters. 8. The Court is of the considered view that once reference has been registered, under the provisions of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Orders, 1964, the reference has to be answered by the Foreigners Tribunal having jurisdiction. The result of the opinion of the learned Tribunal may be in the affirmative or negative but under the scheme of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Orders, 1964, the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC has not been made applicable. The powers of the Foreigners Tribunal to act as a Civil Court is circumscribed in Order 4 of the 1964 Orders which is extracted below: 4) Power of Tribunals. The Tribunal shall have the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a)summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b)requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c)issuing commissions for the examination of any witness. 9. Therefore, the issue as to whether the petitioner is the intended proceedee, can only be answered by the learned Tribunal while answering the reference. In this regard we may refer to the decision of the Court in the case of Md. Abdul Sobur Vs. Union of India, WP(C) 1428/2025 decided on 11.06.2025. 10. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that it would be Page No.# 5/5 open to the petitioner to take up any defence she desires including the defence that she is not the intended proceedee and if the opinion is answered against the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to assail the opinion including the finding of the learned Tribunal on the point as to whether the petitioner is the intended proceedee. 11. In view of the limited issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the other aspects of the case has not been gone into as it requires determination of factual matrix, for which the present stage is premature as the petitioner has not filed her written statement before the learned Tribunal. 12. It is made clear that none of the observation made in this order shall prejudice either the State or the petitioner while the reference is being determined by the learned Tribunal. 13. It is needless to say that in the event that the petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of any plea taken, it would be open for the petitioner to make challenge to the same, if so advised. 14. With the above observations, the writ petition stands closed at the motion stage without issuing notice upon the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant