Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010010182025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/474/2025 JERINA BEGUM @ ZERINA BEGUM @ JARINA AHMED D/O- LATE MOSTAK ALI, W/O- LATE KAMAR UDDIN , R/O- BARPETA ROAD, WARD NO-9, P.S- BARPETA ROAD, DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.S AND P.O- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) P.O P.S AND DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA Page No.# 2/5 NEW DELHI-01 6:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N AHMED, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR. M M ZAMAN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM,SC, F.T,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 19-09-2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. P. Sarma, learned CGC. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Jerina Begum @ Zerina Begum @ Jarina Ahmed has assailed the ex-parte opinion dated 26.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 2nd, Barpeta, in F.T. (2nd) Case No.142/2018, arising out of Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 3816/B/98, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. 3. As the challenge to the impugned opinion has been made after more Page No.# 3/5 than 6 years, this Court by order dated 30.01.2025, was inclined to call for the records and examine the same. Accordingly, the records of the learned Tribunal has been received. 4. Upon a perusal of the process server’s report, this Court by order dated 05.09.2025, directed the two concerned Police Constables (Border) who had served notice in respect of the proceedings of F.T. (2nd) Case No. 142/2018 issued by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, to go to the house of the petitioner, where process was served and to take photographs of the said house, indicating the location of the place and to send the same for production before this Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was also directed to take a photograph of herself in front of the house where she is currently residing along with the map/ location locator in the photograph. 5. As per the letter dated 16.09.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, containing the enquiry report, it is asserted that the process was pasted on the wall at the last known residential address of the petitioner and the process was served and counter signed by Ward Commissioner. 6. On a perusal of the photograph which was taken by the Border Police as well as the photograph of the location as produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the last known residential address where the petitioner is stated to have been residing, is also the current address of the petitioner, stated in the process server’s report, and the said location is a RCC building with shops on the ground floor. Therefore, it is unlikely that no one would be available in the RCC building with shops on the ground floor at the time when the process was being served. Page No.# 4/5 7. Accordingly, without making any comments on the nature of the way in which the process was served, the Court is of the considered opinion that as the petitioner has been able to project that she is residing in the same premises where the process was served, as the issue of citizenship is involved, the Court is also of the considered opinion that this case, an exception can be taken into consideration and accordingly, as the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that she is also currently residing in the same address, the notice cannot be deemed to have been properly served. Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that in this case the petitioner is found to be entitled to have one chance to contest the proceedings. 8. Resultantly, the ex parte opinion dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 2nd, Barpeta, in F.T. (2nd) Case No.142/2018, arising out of Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 3816/B/98 is set aside. The matter is remanded back for a fresh decision by the Foreigners Tribunal 2nd, Barpeta. 9. The petitioner who is duly represented by the learned counsel is directed to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2nd, Barpeta positively on 24.10.2025 without any requirement of fresh notice to be served and on the said date the petitioner shall also submit a written statement along with all the documents on which she intends to rely upon. 10. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner does not appear before the learned Tribunal on the date fixed, it would be open to the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and proceed the matter in accordance with law. Page No.# 5/5 11. The photographs as well as the communication dated 16.09.2025 as produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters are retained on record. 12. The Registry shall send back the Tribunal’s records to the concerned Tribunal expeditiously. 13. The petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 14. There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant