Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010200682025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5414/2025 SULTAN S/O NASIR UDDIN, VILL- DAKSHIN DEBASTHAN, P.O.- DEBASTHAN BAZAR, P.S.- MURAJHAR, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782481 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-1, INDIA 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASDHOKA ROAD DELHI-110001 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/9 6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE SIVASAGAR (SADAR) POLICE STATION P.O.- SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Z HAMMAD, R DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR M R ADHIKARI (C.G.C),SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM Linked Case : WP(C)/5498/2020 MONI BEGUM @ FATIMA KHATOON D/O- LT. NOOR MAHAMMAD W/O- MD. NAZIMUDDIN C/O MD. PAZRIOTUDDIN AHMED VILL- HATIKUKH HAIDAR PATH P.S. SIVASAGAR IN THE DIST.- OF SIVASAGAR (ASSAM) AND PERMANENT R/O- VILL- DAKHIN DEBASTHAN P.S. MURAJHAR IN THE DIST. OF HOJAI VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM SIVASAGAR- 785640 Page No.# 3/9 4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER HOJAI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM SANKARDEV NAGAR PIN- 78442 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM SIVASAGAR- 785640 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) HOJAI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM SANKARDEV NAGAR PIN- 782442 7:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GHY-05 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S S S RAHMAN Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 15-12-2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G, Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal, Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Jr. Govt. Advocate. Page No.# 4/9 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Smt. Moni Begum @ Fatima Khatoon has assailed the ex parte opinion dated 29.10.2015 passed by learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat passed in FT/ SVR. No.277/13, F.T. Case Enquiry No. 243/13, thereby declaring her to be a foreigner who has entered into India after 25.03.1971 from Bangladesh. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the common order dated 03.12.2025 passed in this writ petition as well as in the connected WP(C) 5414/2025, wherein this Court had referred to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-4 of this writ petition to the effect that the petitioner had admitted that being a layman, she does not know the process of law and being ignorant of the facts, decided not to appear before the Tribunal as nothing adverse will happen if the petitioner does not appear before the Tribunal. Accordingly, as per the said admission, as the petitioner is seem to have taken a conscious decision not to contest the proceedings before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, on the said aspect being brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had submitted that he was not the counsel engaged in the present writ petition and accordingly on his prayer the matter was adjourned. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner on record has entered appearance and has submitted that he has filed an affidavit on 05.12.2025 wherein it has been submitted that paragraph-4 of the writ petition was an inadvertent mistake and the contents of the paragraphs are unintentional on part of the petitioner who is now under detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was an incorrect typing. Accordingly, by seeking Page No.# 5/9 an unconditional apology, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said statement be ignored. 5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned ex parte opinion. 6. Perused the materials available in the writ petition. Also examined the records of the learned Tribunal that was called for. The records reveal that vide order dated 20.10.2014, notice was issued to the petitioner. On the next date i.e. 17.11.2014, the petitioner was present in person and moved an application and the matter was adjourned. Thereafter again on the prayer made by the petitioner, the matter was adjourned on 09.12.2014. However, the petitioner remained absent when the matter was listed on 29.12.2014, 17.01.2015, 05.12.2015, 21.02.2015, 21.03.2015, 20.04.2015, 19.05.2015, 18.06.2015, 17.07.2015, 14.08.2015, 11.09.2015, 29.09.2015, 13.10.2015. Thereafter the ex parte opinion was pronounced on 29.10.2015. 7. It is seen that in the writ petition, the affidavit in support of the statements made in the writ petition is shown by one Nasir Uddin, son of Abdus Salam projected himself to be the husband of the petitioner. The correctness of the statement made in paragraph-4 of the writ petition has been verified in this affidavit accompanying the said writ petition to be matters of record, which is true to his information derived from the record. The affidavit that has been filed on 05.12.2025 is by one Sultan who has stated that he is the son of Nasir Uddin and Moni Begum @ Fatima Khatoon. In the opinion of the Court, it is not open to the deponent in the additional affidavit filed on 05.12.2025 to state that paragraph-4 of the writ petition was wrongly sworn. It is also not open for the Page No.# 6/9 deponent in the additional affidavit filed on 05.12.2025 to state that there was an inadvertent mistake committed in writing the said paragraph no.4 because he is not the person at whose instructions the said paragraph 4 was typed out in the writ petition. The deponent of the affidavit had read, understood and had signed and sworn the affidavit. It has also been stated in paragraph-2 of the said additional affidavit that “…the inadvertent mistake so far as the above noted paragraphs are unintentional on part of his mother (the petitioner who is now under detention)..”. It is further stated that the said paragraph is wrongly typed. In this connection, it appears that neither the petitioner nor the deponent in the said additional affidavit nor the learned counsel had examined the writ petition because the statement made in the writ petition is not sworn by the petitioner but by her husband, namely, Nasir Uddin. However, the husband of the petitioner namely, Nasir Uddin has not appeared before the Court to swear the affidavit, but his projected son has appeared and he has stated that the statement made in paragraph-4 of the writ petition was incorrect typing. The deponent in the said additional affidavit has not stated how he got the information about the incorrect typing. The deponent namely, Sultan who had sworn the affidavit on 04.12.2025 was aged 21 years. Therefore, when the affidavit accompanied the writ petition was sworn on 07.10.2020, he was not more than 16 years of age and therefore, he was a minor then. 8. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the additional affidavit has been merely filed to overcome and/or to resile from the statement made in paragraph-4 of the writ petition merely because as per order dated 03.12.2025, this Court had made a query to the effect that the petitioner had admitted taking a conscious decision not to contest the proceedings before the Page No.# 7/9 learned Tribunal. 9. Under the circumstances, when the petitioner had taken a conscious decision not to contest the proceedings before the learned Foreigner Tribunal, this Court while exercising certiorari jurisdiction would not substitute its wisdom over the otherwise correct opinion expressed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, when no fault can be found in the impugned opinion. 10. This Court in the case of Ajbahar Ali v. UoI, (2025) 0 Supreme (Gau) 763, had held to the effect that the plea of compliance of the principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners. Similar opinion has also been expressed by this Court in the case of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. UoI, 2019 (1) GLT 813. 11. It may be relevant to mentioned herein that as per the provision of Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, a mandate is given to the Foreigners Tribunals to dispose of a reference within a period of 60 (sixty) days of the receipt of reference from the competent authority. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, in paragraph 73, has held to the effect that the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. In paragraph 63, the Supreme Court of India had observed that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for Page No.# 8/9 protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the North Eastern region and that their presence has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts. 12. The ex parte opinion was rendered on 29.10.2015 and this writ petition has been filed on 08.12.2020 i.e. after 5 years, 1 month, 9 days or 1867 days, when the mandate of Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 requires a reference to be disposed of within 60 (sixty) days. 13. In this writ petition this Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction and not appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The Court is only required to see if the learned Foreigners Tribunal has not acted in accordance with the mandate of law. It is not open for this Court to substitute its wisdom over the otherwise correct opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal when the petitioner had taken a conscious decision not to contest the proceedings. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the Court cannot find fault with the ex parte opinion after it had adjourned the proceedings on several dates referred above. 14. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to say that the learned Foreigners Tribunal did not give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceeding. 15. Therefore, in light of the unexplained enormous delay and latches in Page No.# 9/9 assailing the impugned opinion when the provision of Order 3 (14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, allowed only 60 days time to dispose of a reference. However, in this case the learned Tribunal had granted 1867 days time to the petitioner to appear and contest the proceedings and thereafter ex parte opinion was rendered. 16. Resultantly, in light of the discussion above this writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 17. Let the records of the Tribunal be returned along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record for the learned Tribunal for future reference. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant