Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010267122018 2026:GAU-AS:12253 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8337/2018 MOHIRON NESSA @ MOHIMA BIBI D/O. LT. JOYNUDDIN SK, W/O. WAHED ALI, R/O. VILL. BELDUBI, P.S. FAKIRGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM. 6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR. A M KHAN,MR. S MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 26.08.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI, Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT & Border Matters and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Mohiron Nessa @ Mohima Bibi, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 06.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal- II, Dhubri, in F.T. Case No. 248/F/15, arising out of Police Reference Case No. 77/D/08, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of Post 25.03.1971 Stream. 3. In view of the order of remand, which is proposed to be passed, the Court does not find any reason to burden this order in discussion of the pleadings and Page No.# 3/4 evidence on record. It would be suffice to mention that as per the Tribunal’s records, the petitioner had examined herself as DW-1, one Moulabi Abdus Samad was examined as DW-2, who had projected himself to be a uncle of the petitioner and one, Sahinoor Begum, Chairman, VCDC, Kalijhar, under Kokrajhar District as DW-3. In the decision and reasons, the learned Tribunal is found to have discussed only a part of the impugned opinion, the evidence of DW-3, but the said learned Tribunal had not made any discussion or appreciation of the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2. 4. Although the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has made submissions to defend the impugned opinion, but in the considered opinion of the Court, the lack of discussion on the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 is found to have vitiated the said impugned opinion dated 06.10.2018. 5. As the Foreigners Tribunals are basically dealing with the issue of citizenship, it is expected that whatever evidence is led by the parties, would be discussed by the said learned Tribunal while rendering its opinion. 6. Accordingly, on the opinion being found to be vitiated in the absence of discussions on the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2, the impugned opinion dated 06.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-II, Dhubri in F.T. Case No. 248/F/15, arising out of Police Reference Case No. 77/D/08, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the proceedings of F.T. Case No. 248/F/13 is remanded back to the said learned Tribunal for a fresh decision after considering the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2. 7. The petitioner, namely, Mohiron Nessa @ Mohima Bibi, who is duly represented by her learned counsel, is directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal within the outer time limit of 29.09.2026, and by producing a Page No.# 4/4 certified copy of this order, await for orders passed by the said learned Tribunal. 8. On appearance of the petitioner, she would take bail of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the satisfaction of the said learned Tribunal. The said bail would be, amongst others, on a condition that it would be valid for a period of 30 days from the date of the fresh opinion to be passed by the said learned Tribunal. 9. In the event, the petitioner does not appear before the said learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law. 10. The Registry shall expeditiously return back the Tribunal’s records along with a copy of the order, to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal. 11. This writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above with an order of remand. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant