Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010250752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3687/2025 CHAN BANU ALIAS SUN BANU W/O UKIL UDDIN, VILL- NO. 3 BARGHULI, P.O.- BARGHULI SAPMARI, P.S.- ULUANI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782120 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI110001. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. H ALI,J M SULAIMAN,B Page No.# 2/9 BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, F.T,SC, NRC Linked Case : WP(C)/3579/2025 CHAN BANU @ SUN BANU W/O UKIL UDDIN VILL- NO. 3 BARGHULI P.O.- BARGHULI SAPMARI P.S.- ULUANI DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782120 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM ------------ Page No.# 3/9 Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17-12-2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learnedd standing counsel for respondent no.2; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC, for respondent nos. 3 and 5; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.4. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Chan Banu @ Sun Banu, has assailed the ex parte opinion dated 21.04.2009, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (2nd), Nagaon in F.T. Case No. 950/2007(A) [arising out of S.P. Case No. 1692/98], by which on failure of the petitioner to adduce any evidence since 11.09.2008, the reference was answered in favour of the State and against the petitioner, thereby declaring her to be a foreigner entering from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. 3) The hereinbefore referred case was registered upon reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon. As per the process server’s report available in the Tribunal’s record, the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of notice of the proceeding by affixing her right-hand thumb impression in the presence of the Gaonburah. The service report was Page No.# 4/9 returned back after service. By order dated 10.09.2007, 14.09.2007 and 17.10.2007, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to file her written statement. Her written statement was submitted on 15.11.2007. Her defence is to the effect her grandfather’s name was enlisted in the electoral roll of 1970 under No.90, Kaliabor L.A.C. from village- Karoiguri, as Omar Ali, son of Miraj Ali. Her father’s name was enlisted in the electoral roll of 1994 under No.88, Samaguri L.A.C. from village- 4 No. Bhurbandha Part-II, as Mohammad Ali. She was born in village- Karoiguri and then her father had shifted to village No.4, Bhurbandha and still residing there permanently. The petitioner was married to Md. Wakil Uddin of village no.3 Barghuli, under P.S. Ulani, Dist. Nagaon, where she is still residing with her husband. Accordingly, by refuting the allegation that she was a foreigner, the petitioner had stated that the case was liable to be dismissed. 4) Thereafter, in the absence of the petitioner, the proceedings were adjourned on 17.10.2007, 15.11.2007, 14.12.2007, 12.01.2008, 13.02.2008, 11.03.2008, 22.04.2008, 22.05.2008, 13.06.2008, 18.07.2008, 18.08.2008, 11.09.2008, 30.09.2008, 01.11.2008, 08.12.2008 and 17.01.2009. However, neither did the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and nor did she file her evidence-on-affidavit or appear to adduce oral evidence, and the impugned ex parte opinion was passed on 21.04.2009. 5) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the statements made in the writ petition, had submitted that the names of the family members, including that of her father, mother, brothers, and her own children were disclosed and it was submitted that the nationality of any other family members were never questioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the names that were appearing in the voter list of 1965, 1970, Page No.# 5/9 1977, 1997, 2005, 2010 and 2015. It was also submitted that the petitioner had a certificate from the Gaon Panchayat and the Govt. Gaonburah. She also has an Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) and Aadhaar Card,which would all show that she is a citizen of India. 6) It was submitted that the petitioner was dependent on her learned counsel, but she had received no information from her engaged counsel regarding dates fixed in the proceeding. It was submitted that the petitioner had given her thumb impression of several blank papers and she was given assurance that she need not come and would be informed as and when her appearance before the learned Tribunal would be necessary. It was submitted that only when the petitioner was taken into custody on 27.05.2025, she and other family members realized, to their utter shock, that the petitioner was taken into custody pursuant to the ex parte opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal. 7) It was taken that it took some time to obtain certified copy of the impugned opinion and other relevant documents and thereafter, engaged the present set of counsel for filing the writ petition and the connected interlocutory application for bail, 8) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that as the petitioner has all the relevant documents to prove that she is a citizen of India, the petitioner may be afforded one opportunity to file her evidence and to prove her defence. It has been submitted that if no opportunity is granted to the petitioner, she would suffer great injustice and her citizenship right since birth would be irreversibly lost forever. It has been submitted that the petitioner had been denied reasonable opportunity to prove her defence. It has been submitted that the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy available to her. Page No.# 6/9 9) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC had opposed the prayer made in this writ petition. 10) In this case, the ex parte opinion is of 21.04.2009. However, the certified copy of the voter list of 1965 was prepared on 04.11.2015; the certified copy of voter list of 1977 was prepared on 25.06.2018; the certified copy of voter list of 1997 was prepared on 02.06.2025; the certified copy of voter list of 2005 was prepared on 21.02.2019; another certified copy of voter list of 2005 was prepared on 10.11.2019; the certified copy of voter list of 2010 was prepared on 30.05.2025; the date of another certified copy of voter list of 2010 is not mentioned on the document, but the court fee stamp has been cancelled vide no. 2061/2015; the certified copy of voter list of 2015 was prepared on 30.05.2025; the certified copy of voter list of 2020 was prepared on 02.06.2025; the Panchayat certificate is dated 19.06.2015; the certificate by Government Gaon Pradhan is issued on 28.05.2023; the EPIC is issued on 01.10.2013; and the date of issue of the Aadhaar Card is mentioned as 24.12.2016. Therefore, as per the documents annexed to the writ petition, the only document that the petitioner has been holding prior to the opinion is the voter list of 1970. 11) Accordingly, the projection by the petitioner to the effect that she had handed over all the documents to her learned counsel engaged to appear in the Foreigners Tribunal could not be established and thus, the said projection is incorrect and unacceptable as contrary to the contents of the annexed documents referred in the foregoing paragraph. Contrary to the statement made in the writ petition that the learned Tribunal had not given adequate opportunity to prove her defence, the Tribunal’s record discloses that despite 15 dates being granted to the petitioner over a span of over two years, neither the petitioner and nor her learned counsel appeared and took steps in Page No.# 7/9 the proceedings before the learned Foreigners Tribunal to adduce evidence and prove her defence. 12) 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. 13) 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 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 Page No.# 8/9 minority in certain districts. 14) The ex parte opinion was rendered on 21.04.2009. The petitioner has remained silent for more than 16 years after passing of the impugned ex parte opinion. It is only after the petitioner was apprehended and taken into custody on 27.05.2025 that the petitioner and her family members woke up from their deep slumber to assail the same by filing this writ petition on 21.06.2025, i.e., after 16 years 2 months or 5905 days. As indicated hereinbefore, the plea that the petitioner had handed over all her documents to her counsel is incorrect and not acceptable because, except for one document, all other documents annexed to this writ petition have been procured long after the ex parte opinion was passed. 15) In this writ petition, this Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction and not appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The Court is only to see if the learned Foreigners Tribunal has failed to act in accordance with the mandate of law and if the opinion of the learned Foreigners Tribunal is not vitiated by any procedural impropriety and if the opinion is not found to be vitiated by taking into account irrelevant considerations or ignoring to take note of the pleadings and evidence, it is not open for this Court to substitute its wisdom over the otherwise correct opinion expressed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal when no fault whatsoever can be found in the impugned opinion. 16) Therefore, 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 5905 days or 16 years, 2 months approximately in assailing the impugned opinion. Under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the time allowable to dispose of a reference is 60 days. In this case, the petitioner had first appeared before the learned Tribunal on 10.09.2007 and the Page No.# 9/9 opinion was delivered on 21.04.2009, thereby, the learned Tribunal had granted 1 year 7 months 11 days or 589 days to the petitioner before finally giving its opinion. 17) Hence, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 18) Let the Tribunal’s records be returned along with a copy of this order, to be made a part of the record of the learned Tribunal for future reference. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant