Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010030482019 2025:GAU-AS:16905 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1061/2019 MILIKA KHATUN W/O. LATE ABDUL MANNAS, D/O.- LATE MOIZUDDIN, R/O. VILL.- MOIRABARI, P.S. MOIRABARI, DIST.- MORIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782105. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MORIGAON (BORDER) DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782105. 5:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 INDIA. Page No.# 2/5 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) BHANGAGARH ASSAM INDIA. GUWAHATI-05 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T H HAZARIKA, MR M CHETIA,MR A RASHID,MR S DEKA,MR. K ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,MR J PAYENG,MS. A VERMA,SC, ECI,MR. D BARUAH,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 08.12.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Rashid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, F.T and Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for ECI and Ms. Rita Devi, learned CGC for the Union of India. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal – 5th, Morigaon, in M.F.T.(J).2017/196 [Case No. F.T. (D) 176/2015 (New Number); F.T.(D) 1250/2012 (Old Number); D/N Case No. 1999/98 dated 24/6/1998], thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had entered India (Assam) after 25th March, 1971. Page No.# 3/5 3. On receipt of notice of the proceeding, the petitioner had appeared and filed her written statement. In support of her case, the petitioner has examined herself as DW-1, one Ruhul Amin as DW-2, who was the Govt. Gaonburah and one Safia Khatun, wife of Idrish Ali as DW-3. 4. It may be stated that the petitioner has not examined a single document and all the six (6) documents exhibited on behalf of the petitioner were done by DW-2, the Govt. Gaonburah. 5. However, from the impugned opinion, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal has not discussed the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3. 6. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the F.T and Border matters has submitted that as the petitioner had not exhibited any document, she has not been able to prove her link with the projected parents. Moreover, it has been submitted that the certificate by the Gaonburah (Ext.A) and the Gaon Panchayat Certificate (Ext.B) are not admissible in evidence in view of the fact that both the documents contained State Emblem, being the Pillar of Asoka. Moreover, it is submitted that by none of the exhibited documents, the petitioner is able to link herself with the projected parents, more so, because the written statement filed by the petitioner does not conform the mandate of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, as the petitioner has not disclosed the name of her mother or any other siblings or Page No.# 4/5 any other material particulars. 7. 7. Though we find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the F.T and Border matters, but it is too well settled that the Foreigners Tribunal, being a quasi judicial authority, is required to consider all the pleadings and evidence on record. Whatever worth was the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3, the learned Foreigners Tribunal ought to have consider and or discussed the said evidence in its opinion. 8. In view of the non-consideration and non-discussion of evidence of DW-2 and DW-3, the Court is of the considered opinion that the same has vitiated the opinion dated 28.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal – 5th, Morigaon. 9. Having regard to the conclusion that the said opinion is vitiated due to non- consideration of evidence of DW-2 and DW-3, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned opinion and remand the matter back to the said Foreigners Tribunal for a fresh opinion in accordance with law by considering the pleadings and evidence available on record. 10. As the matter is being remanded back, this Court has not examined and discussed the pleadings and evidence available on record. 11. The petitioner, who is duly represented by her learned counsel, shall appear Page No.# 5/5 before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal – 5th, Morigaon, on or before 30.01.2026 without requirement of any fresh notice of appearance to be served on her and by producing a certified copy of the order/instructions of the said learned Tribunal, await for further orders by the said learned Tribunal. Having noticed that reference was made in the year 1998, we hope and trust that the learned Tribunal shall, subject to efficacious management of its board, make an endeavor to conclude the proceeding preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of appearance i.e., 30.01.2026. 12. In the event the petitioner fails to appear within the time allowed, it would be permissible for the said learned Tribunal to consider the petitioner to be absent on call and pass appropriate opinion in accordance with law. 13. Writ Petition stands partly allowed to the extent indicated as above. 14. The Registry shall send back the records to the Tribunal along with a copy of this order, to be made a part of record by the said learned Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant