Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010021042025 2025:GAU-AS:6060-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/635/2025 ROKMAN KHAN S/O- LATE CHAN KHAN, @ JUJAR KHA @ JOJU KHAN, R/O- VILLAGE BANBAHAR, P.O- BHOWANIPUR, P.S- BARPETA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781352, VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 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 ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE CO ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTATION OF CITIZENS ASSAM ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BARPETA PS P.S BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78135 Advocate for the Petitioner : SAIFUL ISLAM, MR. R ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, F.T,SC, NRC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 15.05.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahakar, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 17.01.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-I, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 881/18, arising out of Ref. No. 1520/B/98, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. 3. The petitioner projects that on receipt of notice of the learned Page No.# 3/5 Tribunal, he had gone to a person, who assured the petitioner to face the matter and despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the Court finds that the petitioner has wilfully defaulted in appearing before the learned Tribunal. When the petitioner goes to a person, who is not an advocate, on receipt of summons of the Tribunal, the petitioner has done so at his own risk. Therefore, on the said ground, the Court is disinclined to interfere with the ex parte opinion dated 17.01.2023. 4. Nonetheless, on perusal of the materials appended to the writ petition, it is noted that the petitioner is relying on opinion dated 21.09.2011, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-I, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 79/2010, arising out of F.T. Ref. No. 1521/98 in respect of a proceedee named Kachiran Nessa, who is the projected mother of the petitioner. By the said opinion, the mother of the petitioner was declared to be not a foreigner. In the said opinion, the projected mother of the petitioner had placed reliance on voter list of 1989, which purportedly contains the name of her husband, who is projected to be the father of the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. Under such circumstances, notwithstanding the serious objection made by the learned standing counsel for the FT matter against the interference with the impugned opinion, the Court is of the considered opinion that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to prove his citizenship. However, as this order is being passed under circumstances unique to this case, this order is not to be cited as a precedent for any other case. 6. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion as to the documents produced by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Therefore, on remand, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to examine the Page No.# 4/5 admissibility, veracity and correctness of the documents on which reliance is placed by the petitioner and examine the pleadings and evidence including documentary evidence produced in accordance with law. 7. On account of the fact that the petitioner has wilfully defaulted in appearing before the learned Tribunal despite service of notice, as a pre- condition for remand, the petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the Gauhati High Court Legal Service Committee, which shall be done within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of this order and acknowledgment of receipt of the same shall be produced before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-I, Barpeta. 8. Subject to deposit of cost as a pre-condition, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned ex parte opinion dated 17.01.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-I, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 881/18. On non- deposit of cost, this conditional order shall sand automatically recalled. 9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal on or before 06.06.2025 without any notice from the learned Tribunal and produce a certified copy of this order as well as a copy of acknowledgment of payment of cost to the Gauhati High Court Legal Service Committee. The petitioner shall also submit his written statement of defence and thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall pass necessary orders to fix the matter for evidence. 10. As the reference against the petitioner is of the year 1998, it would be permissible for the learned Tribunal to hear the matter as expeditiously as possible, if required, by restricting adjournment and by fixing short dates, in such manner as deemed appropriate. 11. It is also made clear that if the petitioner does not appear before the Page No.# 5/5 learned Tribunal within the time allowed, and does not produce proof of deposit of cost, it would be permissible for the said learned Tribunal to treat the order of the Court as recalled. 12. Registry shall send back the records of F.T. Case No. 881/18 and F.T. Case No. 79/2010 to the learned Tribunal 13. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant