Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010276072025 2026:GAU-AS:991-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7181/2025 MAHARUDDIN S/O.- PORA SHEIKH, VILL.- NO. 3 ARIMARI, P.O. AND P.S.- KHARUPETIA, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI- 01. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-01 INDIA. 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MONGALDAI DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM. PIN- 784115 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) Page No.# 2/7 DARRANG DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM. PIN- 78411 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI, MS. M KHATUN,MS K TAYE Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 27.01.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC, Ms. S. Kataky, learned standing counsel for the ECI, Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border Matters and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 22.06.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal (3rd) Darrang, Mangaldai, in FT (3) Case No. 6276/2021, arising out of Ref-SPE No. DTD. 4/10/2021, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. As the petitioner is assailing the opinion dated 22.06.2023 by filing this writ Petition on 10.12.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the inordinate delay in assailing the opinion. In response to the said query, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Page No.# 3/7 statements in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the statement made in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition is extracted hereinbelow: “That the petitioner a bonafide citizen of India by birth. He is a poor and uneducated person. He was suspected to be a foreigner and a notice was issued against her to appear before the Tribunal by registering a case being FT (3 rd) Case No. 6276/2021. The notice was not served upon the petitioner. It is stated in the impugned order that the notice is received by the petitioner’s wife. In fact the petitioner is neither aware about the notice nor his wife handed over the notice to him. The wife of the petitioner did not understood about the notice. Moreover there was a family quarrel between the petitioner and his wife and as such, he went away to Karnataka for his livelihood. The case was proceeded ex- parte as the petitioner could not appear to proceed the case and finally the impugned ex-parte order is passed on 22.06.2023 which is liable to be set aside. The petitioner prays an opportunity to appear before the tribunal. So, the case may kindly be remanded for reconsideration.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is having sufficient link documents to show his connection with his projected father, namely, Pora Sheikh because in the electoral roll of 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2025, the name of the petitioner appears along with his projected father. In order to support the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following documents, which are annexed to the writ petition as Annexure A to Annexure O, being photocopy of (A) NRC of 1966, (B) voter list of 1966, (C) voter list of 1971, (D) voter list of 1993, (E) voter list of 1997, (F) voter list of 2005, (G) voter list of 2010, (H) voter list of 2015, (I) voter list of 2025, (J) Identity Card issued by Secretary of Arimari Gaon Panchayat, (K) Ration Card, (L) Bank Pass Book, and (M) PAN Card, (N) Aadhar card, (O) Impugned ex parte opinion dated 22.06.2023. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the FT and Border matters Page No.# 4/7 has made his submissions to oppose the interference with the ex parte opinion on the ground that despite due service of notice, the petitioner had not appeared in the proceedings. It is further submitted that the annexed documents are not sufficient to connect the petitioner with his projected father. 6. At the outset, it may stated that the notice of the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal was duly served upon the wife of the petitioner. Thus, the notice of the Tribunal’s proceedings is found to have been duly served upon the petitioner in accordance with the provision of Order 3 (5) (b) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 7. It is seen that the petitioner in his explanation to his non- appearance before the learned Tribunal has admitted that the notice was received by his wife. As per the impugned ex parte opinion, on 10.02.2023, notice was returned after service. But, in order to justify his non-appearance before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that the notice was received by his wife, but the petitioner was not aware of the notice and that his wife had not handed over the notice to him. He has further stated that his wife did not understand about the notice and moreover, there was a family quarrel between the petitioner and his wife and as such, he went away to Karnataka for his livelihood. 8. It is noticed that for reasons best known to the petitioner, he has remained absolutely silent (i) as to the date when he left for Karnataka; (ii) where in Karnataka he had been staying; (iii) in which firm, company or organization he was working for his livelihood; (iv) the dates when he visited his home at Village No.3 Arimari under P.S. Kharupetia, Dist. Darrang; (v) the Page No.# 5/7 date when he came to know about the ex parte opinion. 9. The projection of the petitioner that he had a dispute with his wife is very vague and bereft of any material particulars. The said projection appears to be an afterthought because as per the learned Tribunal’s records, which had been called for, the notice of the proceedings had been issued on 27.12.2022 and duly served upon the petitioner’s wife on 31.12.2022, in the presence of one witness. Therefore, on the date when notice was served on the wife of the petitioner, she was very much in her matrimonial home and as per documents annexed to the writ petition, as per the electoral roll of 2025, a part of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-I, there are at least 10 adult members in the family of the petitioner. Thus, in the absence of any statement in the writ petition that all inmates of his house were inimical and/or unfavourable to him, it cannot be believed that no other family member would be aware of service of process addressed to the petitioner upon his wife because the process was served by a Police Constable (Border) and it is unlikely that no one in the village would notice a police personnel coming to the house of the petitioner to serve process. The petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that his wife did not understand about the notice, which means that the petitioner had to be in contact with his wife and that to be served with the process, she is admittedly a resident of the household of the petitioner. 10. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the petitioner has suppressed material information regarding the members in his family for reasons best known to him. 11. There is no statement in the writ petition that after the Page No.# 6/7 petitioner had left for Karnataka, he was not in contact with any member of his family. 12. The petitioner’s wife, being an adult member of his family had the sanction of the provision of Order 3(5)(b) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to be served with the notice of the proceeding. Thus, notice was properly served on the wife of the petitioner, which is specifically admitted in the writ petition. 13. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to hold that petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate any material on record from which it can be inferred that there was a dispute between the petitioner and his wife as projected in the writ petition, for which he had left his wife and other members of his own family and allegedly left for Karnataka. Thus, the only presumption that can be drawn in this case is that despite service of notice upon the petitioner’s wife, he has failed to contest the proceeding with full knowledge that he is being accused of illegally entering into India (Assam). 14. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Medicine Sciences & Anr. v. Bikartan Das, (2023) 0 Supreme(SC) 763, wherein the scope for exercising certiorari jurisdiction has been laid down by proving that writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued for a mere asking. Therefore, as the petitioner has admitted that the notice was served to his wife, he has failed to show sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner from appearing and contesting the proceeding where he is accused of being a foreigner, who has entered into India (Assam) illegally after 25.03.1971. Page No.# 7/7 15. Accordingly, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions on the documents annexed to the writ petition, but the primary quasi-judicial authority to examine the pleadings and documents in exercise of original jurisdiction is the jurisdictional Foreigners Tribunal. This Court would refrain from examining the documents as if it is a Tribunal of first instance and render its finding based on appreciation of documents, which is way outside the scope of exercising certiorari jurisdiction. 16. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned ex parte opinion dated 22.06.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal (3rd) Darrang, Mangaldai, in FT (3) Case No. 6276/2021, arising out of Ref-SPE No. DTD. 4/10/2021, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream, fails. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. The consequences of the opinion shall follow. 17. The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s records along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record by the learned Tribunal for future reference. JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant