Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010115482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1727/2025 MS MOIRAM NESSA W/O-MAHAR UDDIN R/O VILLAGE- AMARAKANDA, P.S.- RUPAHIHAT, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM.782125 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA TO BE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM (BORDER) BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI05. 4:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM. 5:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON ASSAM. PIN-78200 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K MIRA, MR. M H SAIKIA,MS. L WAJEEDA,MR. N H Page No.# 2/4 MAZARBHUIYAN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 04.05.2026 (S.K. Medhi , J.) Heard Ms. L. Wajeeda, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Deptt. & NRC; Ms. RB Bora, learned State Counsel and Shri M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri AI Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI. 2. The instant application has been filed for fixing an amended date for appearance before the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Nagaon in F.T. Case No. 58/2009. 3. From the facts which are revealed, the applicant / petitioner had filed the connected writ petition being WP(C)/697/2017, challenging an order of 19.04.2012 by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Nagaon in F.T. Case No. 58/2009 declaring her as a foreigner post-1971 stream. 4. This Court, after considering the matter and in the interest of justice, had passed an order dated 12.04.2023, whereby the petitioner was given a chance to appear before the concerned Tribunal on 26.05.2023, subject to payment of a cost. For ready reference, the operative part of the order dated 12.04.2023 is extracted hereinbelow: “5. We do not notice any infirmity in the order dated 19.04.2012 of the Page No.# 3/4 Tribunal in F.T. Case No. 58/2009. But, however, for the ends of justice, the petitioner is granted another opportunity to appear before the Tribunal and establish her case on merit. But, however, because of the conduct of the petitioner for not continuing to appear before the Tribunal without any acceptable reason, a cost of Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) be paid, to be deposited before District Legal Services Authority, Nagaon and upon showing proof of the payment of cost, to appear before the Tribunal on 26.05.2023. 6. The order dated 19.04.2012 of the Tribunal in F.T. Case No. 58/2009 is set aside accordingly.” 5. Ms. Wajeeda, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to communication gap, the order could not be conveyed to the petitioner / applicant and therefore, the application has been made. 6. Shri Payeng, learned Standing Counsel has however, contended that the present application lacks of bona fide, as the approach to this Court is after almost two years from the order dated 12.04.2023. 7. Rival contentions have been duly considered. 8. We have noted that while the order dated 12.04.2023 was passed, this Court had made a clear observation that no infirmity was noticed in the impugned opinion and the order enabling appearance of the applicant before the learned Tribunal was made only to secure the ends of justice. The order, as noted above, was passed on 12.04.2023 and the instant application, praying for extension of time, has been presented on 27.05.2025 i.e. after 2 years. We have also noted that the impugned opinion of the learned Tribunal is of the year 2012 and the writ petition itself was presented after a long delay of five years. Page No.# 4/4 9. The powers exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and the jurisdiction exercised is equitable wherein the conduct of the party approaching this Court is of paramount importance. The very conduct of the applicant in approaching this Court after about two years from the date of the order for extension of time does not inspire any confidence at all and we are of the opinion that the process of this Court is sought to be abused by such filing. 10. In view of the above, the instant IA is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant