Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010115532025 2025:GAU-AS:14837-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2917/2025 TORAP ALI S/O JUMUR UDDIN, R/O VILL- BHUKURADIA, P.O.- TUPAMARI, P.S.- NAGARBERA, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781127 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781031 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781031 Page No.# 2/7 6:THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (BORDER) ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWHAATI-781007 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE NAGARBERA POLICE STATION KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78112 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A W AMAN, A MISHRA,MR. D K AGARWALA,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 03.11.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC, representing respondent nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, representing respondent no.4. 2) The petitioner in this case is Torap Ali. His case is that his two uncles, namely, Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique and Akbar Ali, were both declared as foreigner/illegal migrant who had entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971, as follows:- a. Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique was declared as foreigner/illegal migrant vide opinion dated 12.12.2017, Page No.# 3/7 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Kamrup (Rural) at Guwahati, in G.F.T.(R)/ Case No. 205/2017 [bearing IM(D)T Case No. 12/1998. b. Akbar Ali was declared as foreigner/illegal migrant vide opinion dated 12.12.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Kamrup (Rural) at Guwahati, in G.F.T.(R)/ Case No. 207/2017. 3) Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 293/2018, had assailed the said opinion, inter alia, on the ground that the proceedee in the reference case is a different person whose father has been described as Late Jara Akand, whereas the name of his father is Late Jasa Akand. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 04.012.2018, dismissed the writ petition on that ground that only Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique, son of Late Jara Akand would have the locus standi to assail the said opinion. 4) Similarly, Akbar Ali, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 301/2018, had assailed the said opinion, inter alia, on the ground that the proceedee in the reference case is a different person whose father has been described as Late Jara Akand, whereas the name of his father is Late Jasa Akand. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 04.012.2018, dismissed the writ petition on that ground that only Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 293/2018, had assailed the said opinion, inter alia, on the ground that the proceedee in the reference case is a different person whose father has been Page No.# 4/7 described as Late Jara Akand, whereas the name of his father is Late Jasa Akand. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 04.012.2018, dismissed the writ petition on that ground that only Akbar Ali, son of Late Jara Akand would have the locus standi to assail the said opinion. 5) There is total absence of any statement in the writ petition that the two persons who were declared foreign nationals, had assailed the said two opinion dated 12.12.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the said opinions were not challenged by the petitioners or the proceedees. Therefore, it appears that the said two opinions dated 12.12.2017, passed in G.F.T.(R) Case No. 205/2017 and G.F.T.(R) Case No. 207/2017 had attained finality. 6) The case of the petitioner is that his two uncles abovenamed, i.e. the two declared foreign nationals were taken into custody pursuant to the impugned opinion. However, upon completion of more than two years of detention, they were both released on 22.04.2020, pursuant to the directions contained in (i) order dated 10.05.2019, passed by the Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No. 1045/2018 – Supreme Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India & Anr., and (ii) order dated 13.04.2020, passed by this Court in Suo Motu W.P.(C) 1/2020. 7) The petitioner projects that the said two declared foreign nationals had been complying by the conditions of bail by regularly appearing before Nagarbera P.S. However, on 25.05.2025, both Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique and Akbar Ali were taken into custody and thereafter shifted to Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara. 8) Accordingly, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Page No.# 5/7 Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for (i) to issue a direction in the nature of certiorari and/or any other writ, order of declaration to quash the decision of the respondent authorities to “push back” the two uncles of the petitioner, namely, Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique and Akbar Ali, who were detained on 25.05.2025; (ii) for issuing a mandamus and/or any other writ, order or declaration to the respondent authorities to follow the due procedure as applicable for deportation of the said two uncles of the petitioner and till initiation of the same, to direct the respondent authorities to release the said two detenues 9) This writ petition was filed on 28.05.2025, and it was immediately taken up on the same date. However, as copy of the writ petition was served on the learned standing counsel for the respondents only in the morning of 28.05.2025, they had prayed to take up the matter on 29.05.2025. Accordingly, by order dated 29.05.2025, direction was issued to the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters to obtain instructions as to the status of the said two declared foreign nationals. Accordingly, on 04.06.2025, when the matter was next listed, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters had disclosed that the said two declared foreign nationals have been lodged in the Holding Centre, under 7th Assam Police Battalion, Charaikhola, in the district of Kokrajhar. Accordingly, by order dated 04.06.2025, the Court had directed the In-Charge of the said Holding Centre that on production of a certified copy of the order, the writ petitioner be allowed to meet the detained foreign nationals. 10) On the next date of listing, i.e. on 20.06.2025, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Kamrup, Amingaon, had filed an affidavit-in- opposition and on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Page No.# 6/7 liberty was granted to the petitioner to file affidavit-in-reply. Moreover, the Court had also directed the In-Charge of the said Holding Centre that on production of a certified copy of the order, the writ petitioner be allowed to meet the detained foreign nationals along with one family member and one advocate. Thereafter, on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned vide order dated 14.07.2025, 18.08.2025, 27.08.2025 and 17.09.2025. It may be mentioned that vide order dated 11.08.2025, the matter was adjourned on the prayer made by the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters. Moreover, by order dated 17.09.2025, by order dated 04.06.2025, the Court had directed the In-Charge of the said Holding Centre to allow the writ petitioner and one family member to meet the two detained foreign nationals and obtain their signature in the vakalatnama. 11) The petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had met the two detained foreign nationals and had obtained their vakalatnama and accordingly, Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique had filed W.P.(C) 5935/2024 to assail the opinion dated 12.12.2017, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Kamrup (Rural), at Guwahati in G.F.T.(R) Case No. 205/2017 and Akbar Ali had filed W.P.(C) 5939/2025 to assail the opinion dated 12.12.2017, passed by the said learned Tribunal in G.F.T.(R) Case No. 207/2017. 12) Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that once the two declared foreign nationals, namely, Abu Bakkar Siddik @ Abubakkar Siddique and Akbar Ali have filed separate writ petitions to assail the opinion by which they are aggrieved, the petitioner, namely, Torap Ali would have no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. After the two declared foreign nationals have approached this Court to assail the opinion rendered against them by the jurisdictional Foreigners Tribunal, the present petition cannot be Page No.# 7/7 said to be a person aggrieved. 13) Under the circumstances, this writ petition stands dismissed as the aggrieved persons have approached this Court and they have filed their independent writ petitions. 14) There shall be no order as to cost. 15) Before parting with the records, and without prejudice to the said two declared foreign nationals, it may be mentioned that the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC has submitted that the wider issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) 3099/2025. The Court has merely recorded the said submission. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant