Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010287072023 2025:GAU-AS:8162- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/26/2024 NUR ISLAM AND 7 ORS. S/O LATE AHMAD KHA, VILL.- BORBORI, P.O.- BELTOLA, P.S.- DHARAMTUL, DIST.- MORIGAON, ASSAM. 2: SOMALA KHATUN W/O NUR ISLAM VILL.- BORBORI P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- DHARAMTUL DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM. 3: NUR NABI S/O NUR ISLAM VILL.- BORBORI P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- DHARAMTUL DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM. 4: MD. KHAIRUL ISLAM S/O NUR ISLAM VILL.- BORBORI P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- DHARAMTUL DIST.- MORIGAON Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM. 5: SAIFUL ISLAM S/O NUR ISLAM VILL.- BORBORI P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- DHARAMTUL DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM. 6: MD. IBRAHIM KHALIL ULLAH @ IBRAHIM S/O NUR ISLAM VILL.- BORBORI P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- DHARAMTUL DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM. 7: MD. MUSA ALI @ FAJA S/O NUR ISLAM VILL.- BORBORI P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- DHARAMTUL DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM. 8: MD. NUR JAMAL @ NUR JAMAN S/O NUR ISLAM VILL.- BORBORI P.O.- BELTOLA P.S.- DHARAMTUL DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. TO BE REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 3/6 TO BE RE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 ASSAM. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 07. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) MORIGAON ASSAM. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON P.O. AND DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM. 6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DHARAMTUL POLICE STATION MORIGAON ASSAM. 7:THE ASSAM STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGRH GUWAHATI- 5. 8:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 01 Advocate for the Petitioner : S AHMED, MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM Linked Case : NUR ISLAM AND 7 ORS VERSUS Page No.# 4/6 THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS (B) ------------ Advocate for : S AHMED Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS (B) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 19.06.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the FT and NRC representing respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for Election Commission of India representing respondent No. 8 and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The connected review petition is referred against the order dated 06.06.2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 29/2014, by which the said intra court appeal was dismissed. 3. As there is a delay of 1636 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected review application, by filing this interlocutory application, the applicants have prayed for condoning the delay of 1636 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected review application. 4. The only reason assigned in paragraph-3 of this interlocutory application to explain the delay is that the said delay was caused due to financial hardship Page No.# 5/6 and the applicants were disturbed by the Covid-19 pandemic due to which as there was insufficient income for the family and moreover, there was a lack of knowledge and understanding of the gravity of the matter. 5. On a perusal of the materials available in the record of WA No. 29/2014, it appears that the petitioner’s family owns landed property; therefore, in the absence of any particulars, the Court is not inclined to accept the projection that the applicants are poor on having in sufficient source of income. 6. Moreover, from the contents of the connected review application, it is noticed that against the order passed in WA No. 29/2014, the applicants had approached the Supreme Court of India and the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 31698/2017 preferred against the order dated 06.06.2017 passed in WA No. 29/2014 was dismissed by order dated 06.11.2017. 7. It is also noted that in the proceedings of WP(C) No. 342/2013 and WA No. 29/2014 the petitioners/applicants were represented by learned counsel. Therefore, the Court is unable to accept the projection that the applicants were not aware of the legal implications. If all the 8 (eight) applicants herein claim ignorance due to lack of knowledge and understanding of the gravity of the matter, the only presumption that the Court can draw is that they were negligent not know as what would be the implication of dismissal of the writ appeal by which the dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed and resultantly, the opinion of the learned Foreigners Tribunal, holding the applicants to be Foreigner of Post 25.03.1971 stream had attained finality, more so, when their S.L.P. (C) before the Supreme Court of India had been dismissed. 8. Therefore, on or ground, the Court is inclined to hold that the applicants have not been able to explain the delay in laches in preferring the connected Page No.# 6/6 review the delay of 1636 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected review application. 9. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is found to be without any merit and is hereby dismissed. 10. Consequently, the unnumbered review application also stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant