Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010282012025 2025:GAU-AS:17597-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7298/2025 AJGOR ALI ALIAS AJGAR ALI ALIAS MD. AJGAR ALI S/O.- LT. AKBAR ALI ALIAS AKBAR ALI SK. ALIAS AKBOR, VIIIAGE- KHUDIMARI PT.-I, P.O. KHUDIMARI, P.S. GAURIPUR, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER INDIA NEW DELHI- 110001. 3:THE STATE COORDINATOR ASSAM NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS BHANGAGARH GHY- 5. 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-6. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DHUBRI DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 PIN- 783301 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.S. AND DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z HUSSAIN, MR. M HOQUE,MR. S HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17.12.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2; Mr. N. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC, for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.6. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Ajgor Ali @ Ajgar Ali @ Md. Ajgar Ali, has assailed the ex parte opinion dated 31.12.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.5th, Dhubri in Case No. FT-5/GPR/272/2017 [in R/IM(D)T Case No. 2432/1998], by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who has entered Assam illegally on or after 25.03.1971. 3) The hereinbefore referred case was registered upon reference Page No.# 3/7 made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri. As per paragraph 2 of the impugned order, the notice of the proceeding was served on the procedee in accordance with the provisions of Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, by affixing it on the wall of his last known residence in the presence of witness. Thereafter, ex parte opinion was rendered on 17.06.2017. However, later, pursuant to order dated 23.04.2018, passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 2291/2018, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement on 16.05.2018. 4) The learned Tribunal, upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence, by impugned opinion dated 31.12.2019, declared him to be a foreigner/ illegal migrant, who has illegally entered into India/ Assam on or after 25.03.1971. 5) As the present writ petition has been filed 15.12.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address the Court on delay and laches. 6) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the statements made in paragraph 34, has submitted that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate person, who had left Kerala for work in the month of January, 2020 and after staying there for a long time and on return he came to know that the police was searching for him. Thereafter, he obtained the relevant copies and approached the counsel and the present writ petition has been filed. 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that as the petitioner has all the relevant documents to prove that he is a citizen of India and therefore, the case of petitioner be heard on merit. It has been submitted that if no opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he would suffer great injustice Page No.# 4/7 and his valuable citizenship right would be irreversibly lost forever. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy available to her. 8) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC had opposed this writ petition on ground of delay and laches. 9) In this case, the opinion was rendered on 31.12.2019. As per the statement made by the petitioner on oath in paragraph 34 of the writ petition, he had left for Kerala in the month of January. This amounts to an admission by the petitioner that he had left for Kerala only after the opinion was pronounced. 10) The petitioner has not disclosed any material particulars of the date where he was working. He has not produced his bank account pass-book to show entry of his wages in bank while working in Kerala. There is no positive statement that from January, 2020 till November, 2025, he had never visited Assam and was not in contact with any one from Assam including his other family members. 11) 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. 12) 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) Page No.# 5/7 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 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. 13) Though the opinion was rendered on 31.12.2019, the petitioner has remained silent for a little less than 6 years after passing of the impugned opinion. It is only after the petitioner apprehended arrest, he has awakened from his deep slumber to assail the said by filing this writ petition on 16.12.2025, i.e., after 5 years, 11 months, 16 days or 2177 days. 14) In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2-25 INSC 1104: 2025 Supreme(SC) 1679, while dealing with the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has laid down certain guidelines. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a writ petition, but in the considered opinion of the Court, when a writ petition is filed to assail the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, under certiorari jurisdiction, the same principles should apply, requiring the petitioner to provide at least some cogent and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the opinion. Page No.# 6/7 15) A very vague statement by the petitioner that he is poor and illiterate and had gone to Kerala for work cannot be accepted as a good, cogent and acceptable explanation to entertain this writ petition when cause of action to file this writ petition arose on 31.12.2019, when the petitioner was in his place of residence. It is not his case that the petitioner was not aware of the pronouncement of the opinion and similarly, it is not the petitioner’s case that his engaged counsel did not inform him about the impugned opinion. It is also not his case that none of the family members suffered with such disabilities which prevented them to visit the learned counsel for the petitioner to enquire about the fate of his case. It is also not the case of the petitioner that his engaged advocate does not receive any phone-call or letters and does not inform about the result of the case, when asked for. As the petitioner has not stated that he was not aware of the opinion dated 31.12.2019 and that he left for Kerala in the month of January, 2020, is must be deemed that he was aware of the opinion. 16) Therefore, the petitioner is found to be grossly negligent in assailing the impugned order as he is deemed to be aware of the opinion as he has admittedly left his ordinary place of residence after coming to know about the opinion. Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed on the ground of unexplained and enormous delay and laches of 2177 days or 5 years, 11 months, 16 days approximately in assailing the impugned opinion. 17) Hence, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, which has not been properly explained. 18) There shall be no order as to cost. Page No.# 7/7 19) The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Political (B) Department, so as to send a copy of this order to be made a part of the record of the learned Tribunal for future reference. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant