SEKENDAR ALI @ MD SEKANDAR ALI v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS.
WP(C)/8931/2019 · 2026-07-22
Pranjal Das, Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11065 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11065 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010294992019
2026:GAU-AS:10150
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8931/2019 SEKENDAR ALI @ MD SEKANDAR ALI S/O PASAHAN ALI @ PASHU MANDAL @ PAPU MIAH @ GANU, R/O VILL- DHEKIAJANI PATHAR, MOUZA-GOBARDHANA, P.S.-SALBARI, DIST- BAKSA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS.
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF POLITICAL AND HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA
Page No.# 2/3 P.O. AND DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) BARPETA P.O. AND DIST-BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAKSA DISTRICT- BAKSA ASSAM.
8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) BAKSA DISTRICT- BAKSA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. F A HASSAN,MS J BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
O R D E R 23.07.2026 (S.K. Medhi, J)
Heard Shri F.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J. Payang, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department; Shri N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; Shri P. Sharma, learned State Counsel and Shri H. Gupta, learned CGC.
Page No.# 3/3 Shri Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on instructions that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired. In view of such development, there may not be any necessity to continue in this writ petition, as it is a settled position of law that an opinion would be effective only for that particular proceedee and cannot be used as the sole material to declare the other family members as foreigners. The writ petition stands closed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant