Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010243312019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7702/2019 JHUNU ROY S/O- LATE CHITTA RANJAN ROY, R/O- VILL- KAMARDIGHIRPAR, P.O- KAYASTHAGRAM, P.S- NILAMBAZAR, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 5 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ P.O- KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) Page No.# 2/5 DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE NILAM BAZAR POLICE STATION ASSAM DIST- KARIMGANJ PIN- 78872 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. J PAUL, MS. P BURAGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 04.12.2025 (Kalyan Rai Surana, J) Heard Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NRC as well as FT; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent and Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the ex-parte opinion dated 11.04.2011, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal-I, Karimganj, in FT Case No. 614/2009, thereby opining that the petitioner, namely, Jhunu (Shunu) Roy, daughter of the Chitta Ranjan Roy is a foreigner under “D” Voter stream as well as order dated 02.07.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner Tribunal-III, Karimganj, in Misc. Case No. 11/2018, thereby rejecting the application filed under Section 5 Page No.# 3/5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing a connected application for setting aside the ex-parte opinion. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal to allow the petitioner to file her written statement in the proceedings. 3. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner has made her submissions to the effect that though the notice was shown to be duly served on the petitioner, but the petitioner usually signed in English, whereas the signature appended to the Process Server Report is in Bengali. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner denies the said signature to be her signature. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Boarder and FT matters has opposed the prayer for interfering with the ex-parte opinion or against the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the finding by the learned Tribunal in the order dated 02.07.2019 is that the petitioner has not been able to proof that the signature appearing in the Process Server Report was not her. 5. Perused the materials available on record and also the Tribunal’s records, which were requisitioned. 6. It is observed that by order dated 11.04.2011, though the learned Tribunal has opined that the petitioner is a foreigner, but under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, there is no stream under Section 6 A of the said Act refers to a “D” voter’s stream. The reference should only as to whether the petitioner is a foreigner and/or illegal migrant. Page No.# 4/5 7. Be that as it may, on a perusal of the order dated 02.07.2019, by which the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, the learned Tribunal rejected the same on arriving at a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that the signature in the opposite page of the notice was not done by her. Accordingly, it was held that there was no reasonable ground to allow condonation of delay petition. Resultantly, the application for setting aside the ex-parte opinion was rejected. 8. In the considered opinion of the Court, the point as to whether the signature contained in the service report was done by the petitioner or not could only have been considered when the application for setting aside the ex- parte opinion was taken up. In an application for condoning the delay, no occasion would have arisen for the petitioner to prove that the signature appearing in the service report was not done by her. 9. Under this circumstances, the reason for rejecting the application for condonation of delay is not found to be sustainable. Accordingly, the Court has no hesitation to set aside the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal-III, Karimganj. 10. Resultantly, the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 11/2018 is restored to be filed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (III), Karimganj. 11. The petitioner, who is duly represented by the learned counsel before this Court, is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-III, Page No.# 5/5 Karimganj on 21.01.2026 and by producing a certified copy of this order, await for further direction from the said learned Tribunal. 12. In the event the petitioner does not appear within the time prescribed, it would be open for the learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and decide the matter in accordance with law. 13. Registry shall send back the records expeditiously to the concerned learned Tribunal. 14. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant