Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010218042025 2025:GAU-AS:13515-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5793/2025 NURUL HAQUE ALIAS NURUL HOQUE SON OF TAHER ALI RESIDENT OF- VILLAGE KAKI 1 NO. 7 NO. GAON P.O. P.S. - KAKI. DISTRICT - HOJAI, ASSAM PIN- 782442 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI - 110001. 4:THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRAR OF CITIZENS NRC ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5 Page No.# 2/7 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN782462. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN782462 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS R MEDHI, G. R. SINGHA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, F.T,SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 26.09.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. G.R. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. There is no representation from the ECI. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 25.01.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal at Diphu, in F.T. Case No. 22/17, arising out of S.P.(B)’s Ref. Case No. 19/2017, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. Initially an ex parte opinion dated 08.12.2017 was passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal at Diphu, Karbi Anglong, in FT. Case No. Page No.# 3/7 22/2017. The petitioner had then approached this Court by filing WP(C) 5890/2019 and this Court by order dated 18.11.2019, set aside the ex parte opinion, permitting the petitioner to file his written statement and contest the proceedings. However, it appears that in total disregard to the order of this Court, written statement was not filed by the petitioner despite several opportunities being granted by the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the matter was again heard ex parte and the petitioner was again declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 4. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to put the petitioner to notice about the delay and laches and address the Court why this writ petition should not be dismissed in view of the consistent non-appearance and disobedience of the order of this Court. 5. Having put the learned counsel for the petitioner to notice, he has made his submission in the matter, stating that pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner had entered appearance on 08.12.2019 and prayed for bail, which was allowed and thereafter the matter was fixed on 16.12.2019, 13.01.2020 and 24.02.2020, but written statement could not be filed and thereafter, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not take steps for filing of the written statement. It is also submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner’s advocate did not inform the petitioner about the dates fixed in the proceedings and also did not enter appearance on a few dates and in the meanwhile, the matter was heard and decided ex parte on 25.01.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner has sufficient documents to show that he is a citizen of India. Accordingly, it is submitted that the non-appearance or non- filing of the written statement within the extended time by the learned Tribunal was due to ignorance as the then engaged advocate for the petitioner did not Page No.# 4/7 inform the petitioner about the dates as well as the date fixed for ex parte hearing. 6. In respect of the inadvertent delay and laches in assailing the ex parte opinion dated 25.01.2021, by filing this writ petition on 19.09.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was under the impression that the matter was over and he was not communicated about the ex parte opinion rendered against the petitioner declaring him to be a foreigner. It has been submitted that only when the police personnel from the jurisdictional police station came to the house of the petitioner in the month of July, 2025 searching for him, he became aware of the ex parte opinion rendered against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate person and works as a labourer at a construction site. Accordingly, it is submitted that the delay in filing of the writ petition be condoned and an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file his written statement. 7. The prayer made in this writ petition is opposed by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters. 8. From the order dated 18.11.2019, passed by this Court in WP(C) 5890/2019, we take note of the fact that an ex parte opinion had already been passed against the petitioner in FT Case No.22/2017, declaring him to be a foreigner. This Court, having accepted the plea of the petitioner, had set aside the ex parte opinion dated 08.12.2017. At that time, the petitioner had already been taken into custody and accordingly, as per order dated 18.11.2019, the Court had directed that the petitioner, who was taken into custody in May, 2019 and lodged at the Jorhat Central Jail be produced before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Diphu on 06.12.2019 and the Court had further directed that the Tribunal shall fix the next date within a reasonable time enabling the petitioner Page No.# 5/7 to file written statement and documents and it was made very clear in the said order dated 18.11.2019 that the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be concluded within a period of 60 days from 06.12.2019. 9. Under such circumstances, on examining the documents annexed to this petition, we find that the proceedings before the learned Tribunal were taken up on 08.12.2019, 16.12.2019, 13.01.2020, 24.02.2020, 05.06.2020, 08.07.2020, 31.08.2020, 28.09.2020, 12.10.2020, 02.11.2020, 03.12.2020 and 13.01.2021. 10. Accordingly, it is seen that though the petitioner was aware that the Tribunal was required to dispose of the proceedings within 60 days, but for one reason or the other, the petitioner did not file his written statement of defence and did not give any evidence to discharge his burden of proof under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 11. We are unable to accept the allegation against the advocate of the petitioner that he has not informed the petitioner about the next date fixed by the learned Tribunal for a written statement. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from any Act or Rules governing the advocates that the advocate owed any duty to inform the petitioner about the next date fixed in the proceedings, in which the counsel is engaged. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was visiting and meeting his engaged advocate regularly, but he was given false information by his learned counsel. As this Court had already provided by order dated 18.11.2019 for the petitioner to be produced from jail on 06.12.2019 and further providing for the written statement to be filed on the next date, it was incumbent on part of the petitioner to understand the order of this Court and to scrupulously follow the same. Page No.# 6/7 12. The ex parte opinion was rendered on 25.01.2021 and the petitioner has made challenge to this ex parte opinion by filing this writ petition on 19.09.2025. Thus, this also demonstrates that the petitioner did not make any attempt to meet or contact his advocate and to know about the date and fate of his case. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the right to defend in the proceedings where the citizenship of the petitioner is involved, cannot be extended so as to render the exercise as a farcical exercise by giving limitless time to the petitioner to file his written statement and to discharge his burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The provision of Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 mandates that the Foreigners Tribunal shall dispose of the case within a period of 60 days of the receipt of the reference from the competent authority. 14. Under such circumstances, the ex parte opinion rendered for the second time only demonstrates the continuous default on the part of the petitioner to file his written statement of defence and to contest the proceedings by discharging his burden of proof that he is not a foreigner. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the documents annexed to this writ petition to show that he is a bona fide citizen of the Country. This Court, in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, would not venture to examine the documents which were hitherto not be produced and proved before the learned Foreigners Tribunal. 16. Under such circumstances, as indicated above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Foreigners Tribunal gave more than sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file his written statement of defence, Page No.# 7/7 which the petitioner did not avail. 17. As the delay and laches to assail the opinion dated 25.01.2021 by filing this petition on 19.09.2025 has not been satisfactorily explained. As the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any good reason for not filing his written statement in compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 18.11.2019, passed by this Court in WP(C) 5890/2019, as indicated earlier, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve any further opportunity as it would render the determination by the learned Foreigners Tribunal as a farcical exercise. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed in the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 19. Registry shall transmit a copy of this order to the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Diphu to bring the order to the notice of the said authority and to make it a part of the record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant