Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010186422026 2026:GAU- AS:12644-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4730/2026 PARBAT KHAN @ PARBAT ALI @ PARBAT SK @ PARBAT S/O- LATE KADAM @ KADAM ALI @ KADAR ALI, R/O- VILLAGE- GAROJAN, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI -110001 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) GOALPARA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MR B ISLAM,MR Z RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 31.08.2026 (K. R. Surana,J) Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Deb, learned CGC, Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT and Border matters, and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that by an opinion dated 30.07.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 6th at Goalpara in F.T. Case No. F.T.(6)-639/GLP/17, arising out of E.R.O. Reference case No. 622 83/ 39, by which the petitioner was declared to be an Foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said opinion was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3822/2026. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner is in receipt of a summons requiring his appearance before the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 6th at Goalpara on 03.06.2026 in connection with another proceeding, which is registered as F.T. (6) 1773/GLP/26, to appear on 03.06.2026. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on Page No.# 3/5 20.07.2026. The petitioner projects that he could not appear before the learned Tribunal due to his ailment. Accordingly, the said learned Tribunal issued a Bailable Warrant of Arrest for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ with or without surety, requiring appearance of the petitioner on 02.09.2026. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph-8 of the writ petition has been mentioned that the Bailable Warrant of Arrest has been executed and he was released on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends that once he appears in the proceedings of F.T.(6)-639/GLP/17, he may be taken into custody in connection with opinion dated 30.07.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 6th at Goalpara in F.T. Case No. F.T.(6)-639/GLP/17, arising out of E.R.O. Reference case No. 622 83/ 39. Moreover, it is submitted that as the petitioner has already suffered an opinion, the second proceeding will be barred by the principles of res judicata. 7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the FT and Border matters has submitted that as per the settled law in connection with determination as to whether res judicata would apply is to the effect that the petitioner would have to appear before the said learned Tribunal and satisfy the learned Tribunal as regards his identity, and only thereafter, if the learned Tribunal arrives at a finding that the proceeding of both the cases are against the same person and the petitioner is the proceedee in both the cases, the principles of res judicata can thereafter be applied. 8. Taking into consideration, the apprehension of the petitioner of being arrested in connection with opinion dated 30.07.2019, referred above and considering the principles of res judicata, which is made applicable in the proceedings of the Foreigners Tribunal by virtue of decision of the Supreme Page No.# 4/5 Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604, the Court is inclined to provide that the petitioner shall cause filing of his petition to support the contention that he is the proceedee in F.T. Case No. F.T. (6)-639/GLP/17, arising out of E.R.O. Reference case No. 622 83/ 39, as well as in F.T.(6)-1773/GLP/26 and he is the one and the same person, supported by documents. On receipt of such an application, the learned Tribunal shall consider the same and in the event, the identity of both the person is found to be one and the same, i.e., the petitioner, the learned Tribunal shall take into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus (supra) and pass an appropriate order. 9. Accordingly, it is provided that till the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.6th, Goalpara, shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner till its decision on the issue as to whether the petitioner is the same person against whom the earlier opinion dated 30.07.2019 was passed. 10. It is made clear that after the said order is passed, if the petitioner is found to be not the proceedee in respect of whom the opinion dated 30.07.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 6th at Goalpara in F.T. Case No. F.T.(6)-639/GLP/17, arising out of E.R.O. Reference case No. 622 83/ 39, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to insist on the appearance of the petitioner in accordance with law. 11. To facilitate the above, the Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to file his petition positively within 14.09.2026. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails to file such a petition on or before 11.09.2026 along with a certified copy of this order, the learned Tribunal shall pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper so as to proceed with the proceedings in accordance with Page No.# 5/5 law. 12. In view of the observations as indicated above, this writ petition stands disposed of at the motion stage without issuance of notice with the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant