Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010266182025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7279/2025 FAZRUL HOQUE S/O LT. DEWAN SHEIKH,R/O BELGURI PART II, P.O BELGURI, P.S AGOMONI,DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 01. 2:STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI. 4:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHARAIDEU. 5:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) CHARAIDEU. 6:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 110001. Page No.# 2/3 7:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZEN(NRC) BANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P CHALIHA, MS M ROY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 13.05.2026 (S.K. Medhi, J)] Heard Shri D.P. Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Deptt. & NRC, Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, Shri P. Sharma, learned State Counsel and Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC. 2. The instant application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an opinion dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat in F.T. Case No. FT/SVR/3468/2004 whereby the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner post-1971. 3. The primary ground of challenge is that the opinion is an ex-parte one which has been rendered without giving a proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. 4. Shri Chaliha, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at no point of time the notice was served upon him. He has also submitted Page No.# 3/3 that the records would reveal that there is a report of the Jarikarak, who had observed that the petitioner had left the place many years back and therefore, the notice could not be served. 5. Ms. Verma, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that irrespective of the aspect how a notice is to be served, the petitioner was under of duty to inform the fact to the jurisdictional police station regarding his change of address which was not done. 6. Without going to the aforesaid aspect regarding the duty cast upon a proceedee to inform any shift of address, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served if the matter is remanded to the concerned Tribunal for adjudication of the matter in accordance with law. We also make it clear that the aspect of service of notice cannot be taken up any further by the petitioner since this order is passed in presence of the learned counsel of the petitioner. 7. The matter is accordingly remanded to the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat directing the petitioner to appear on or before 29.05.2026 along with the written statement and the evidence of all the witnesses which the petitioner would like to produce. On such presentation, the learned Tribunal would take charge and would complete the adjudication expeditiously and in accordance with law by following Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 8. The interim order of bail shall continue till the completion of the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant