Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010264642025 2026:GAU-AS:1038- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7120/2025 MD. BILLALUDDIN S/O- LATE HASENUDDIN, R/O- VILL.- GERUAGAON CHANKHANDA, P.S. KHATOWAL, MOUZA- KHATOWAL, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI. 3:COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM GUWAHATI-781005. 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HOME AND POLITICAL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR-781006. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001. 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 PIN- 782001. 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE P.S. KHATOWAL DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M D MEDHI, MS J KALITA,MR S J BARUAH 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 : Date: 27.01.2026 (A.M. Kalita, J) Heard Ms. M. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel FT & Border matters; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the NRC and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Government 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 opinion dated 01.08.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Nagaon, Assam in FT Case No. NFT (No. 3) FT 657/2015, arising out of FT Case No. 242/2006, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant, who had entered India (Assam) in between 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971. 3. On receipt of the reference from the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon, FT Case No. NFT (No. 3) FT 657/2015 was registered and notice was issued to the opposite party, i.e., the petitioner in the instant case. The petitioner, at that point of time, refused Page No.# 3/8 to accept the notice and in fact, threatened the Process Server and therefore, the Process Server served the notice in a substituted manner to the petitioner in the presence of the village Headman. The petitioner remained absent without taking any steps for several dates and ultimately, on 28.04.2016, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Nagaon (In short, the Tribunal), passed an ex parte opinion dated 28.04.2016 declaring the petitioner as a foreign national, under Section 2(a) of Foreigners Act, 1946, under the stream of 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971. He was further directed to register his name with the registering authority within two months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid ex parte opinion. However, against the ex parte opinion dated 28.04.2016, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 4831/2018 before this Court and this Court, vide it’s order dated 01.08.2019, directed the petitioner to appear before the learned Tribunal on 21.08.2019 and to file his written statement without fail. 4. In terms of the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2019, the petitioner submitted his written statement on 21.08.2019. In his written statement, the petitioner, inter alia, stated that he was born on 13.08.1951 at village Geruagaon, P.S. Khatowal, District Nagaon; that his grandparents’ names were Ainnudin and Jaitun Nessa respectively; that his father was the only son of his grandparents, whose name was Hasenuddin; that Hasenuddin had five children namely, 1. Siddika Banu, 2. Billal Uddin (the petitioner), 3. Jallaluddin, 4. Osomuddin and 5. Hanufa Khaton (died); that the father of the opposite party died at about 25-26 years ago and the mother, Morium Nessa, died about 8-9 years ago; that the petitioner’s father, late Hasenuddin, purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha, vide Patta No. 3, Dag Nos. 470/476/478 of village Geruagaon, from one Abdul Aziz, vide registered Sale Deed No. 602/1954 dated 22.02.1954. He stated that his father, late Hasenuddin, purchased another plot of land in the year 1968, vide registered Sale Deed No. 10085, Serial No. 9647, which was registered on 05.09.1968, covered by Patta No. 140, Dag No. 479 of village Geruagaon Kissam; that his father purchased another plot of land in the year 1977, which was registered on 21.03.1977 at Nagaon Page No.# 4/8 Sub-Registered Office, Nagaon; that he has obtained his school education from Kaoimari H.S. School and in this regard, the Headmaster of the said school issued a Transfer Certificate, vide No. 124 on 25.08.2018; that his father’s name was enlisted in the voter list of the year 1965 from Geruagaon village; that his father’s name also appeared in the voter list of the year 1970 from Geruagaon village. The petitioner, in his written statement, also stated that a separate proceeding was initiated against his younger brother, namely, Md. Jalaluddin, vide F.T. Case No. 73/2015, wherein the learned Tribunal, vide it’s opinion dated 23.02.2018, declared his brother not to be a foreigner; that the Govt. Gaonbura of Geruagaon had issued a certificate on 16.08.2019, which indicates that the petitioner is the son of late Hasenuddin; that the petitioner has been enjoying his right of franchise since long and he has been issued a Photo Voter Identity Card in that respect. 5. The petitioner has submitted his evidence in affidavit as DW-1, wherein he has reiterated the statements that have already been made in his written statement. He has exhibited 15 nos. of exhibits as well as 3 nos. of documents as Annexures in respect of his case. The petitioner was cross-examined, wherein he stated that his father casted vote since 1965 from Geruagaon village and he is also casting vote since 1979 from the same village. He further stated that his father had landed property which was purchased by him during the year 1954-55. He stated that there was an F.T. Case against his brother Jalaluddin, which was decided in his favour. He stated that there is no other case against any other member of his family. One Siddika Bano claimed to be a sister of the petitioner, has also submitted her evidence-in-affidavit, wherein she reiterates the same statements as had been made by the petitioner in his written statement. In addition to the exhibits submitted by the petitioner, she submitted a certificate from the village Headman as Exhibit No. 15, her PAN card as Exhibit No. 16 and a Legacy Data with her father’s name as Annexure-A. In her cross-examination, she stated that Billaluddin is her own brother from same parents. She stated that her father died about 20/22 years back at Page No.# 5/8 Geruagaon and mother also died in the same village about 10/12 years back. She further stated that there was a case against her brother Jalaluddin, wherein he was declared as non-foreigner. 6. Ms. M. D. Medhi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been appearing before the Tribunal and has submitted his written statement as well as the evidence of himself and his sister namely, Siddika Bano, prior to 30.10.2019. However, between 19.05.2020 to 01.08.2023, on twenty-three (23) occasions, the petitioner could not produce any official witnesses due to the Covid-19 pandemic. She submits that that the petitioner, being a person of advanced age and facing with severe hardships during the pandemic period, was unable to pursue the matter. She submits that though numerous documents were submitted by the petitioner as well as by his sister in support of his case, the learned Tribunal did not consider or discuss about those documents; rather, the learned Tribunal decided the case against him citing his failure to produce evidence. She further submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error by passing the ex parte opinion without taking into account of the fact that the petitioner had been appearing before the learned Tribunal prior to the Covid-19 pandemic but, only after the lock-down, he could not attend the learned Tribunal due to his advanced age and health conditions. She submits that the learned Tribunal has given it’s ex parte opinion without hearing the petitioner and without actually discussing the merit and contents of the documents that have been placed by the petitioner in support of his case. She submits that while passing the ex parte opinion, the merit and contents of the documents should have been discussed and considered by the learned Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, she submits that the impugned opinion passed by the learned Tribunal, on the face of it, is unwarranted and therefore, the same should be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the learned Tribunal for completion of the remaining part of the proceeding. 7. Per contra, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT & Border matters Page No.# 6/8 submits that there is no wrong in the passing of the opinion by the learned Tribunal. He submits that the petitioner is in the habit of not appearing before the learned Tribunal, which can be seen from the earlier opinion passed by the learned Tribunal. He submits that on earlier occasions also the petitioner had failed to appear before the learned Tribunal and therefore, the ex parte opinion had to be passed. In the instant case also, after filing his written statement and evidence, he disappeared and did not appear before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that there is no wrong committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the opinion ex parte. 8. We have considered the rival contentions made in the instant case as well as perused the records received from the FT No. 3rd, Nagaon. It is seen from the records that in addition to the voter lists of the year 1965 and 1970 (certified copies, in original), the certified copies of the voter lists of 2013, 2016 and 2017 were submitted, wherein the petitioner’s name appeared along with other family members and the petitioner has been shown as the son of Hasenuddin, his projected father. It is seen from the voter list of 2017 that the petitioner’s name appeared along with his brother Jalaluddin. It is also seen from the records that the land documents mentioned in the written statement and evidence of the petitioner have been submitted either in original or the certified copies of the same. It is seen from the records that in the opinion passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’Tribunal (3rd), Nagaon, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 73/2015 (State Vs. Md. Jalaluddin), which was delivered on 23.02.2018, the same land documents as well as the certified copies of the voter lists, as submitted by the petitioner, were considered for declaring the aforesaid Md. Jalaluddin as non-foreigner. 9. We, on consideration of the aforesaid materials have minutely looked into the contents of those and prima facie, found that the same documents have been relied on by the learned Tribunal while concluding and opining Md. Jalaluddin, who is claimed to be the brother of the petitioner, as non-foreigner. Page No.# 7/8 10. We have also seen from the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal that the contents of those voter lists and land documents were not duly discussed and considered for the reason that the same had not been proved by the authority with whom the documents lie. We are of the considered view that when materials/evidences by way of documents were brought on record by a Proceedee in support of his case, the same ought to have been considered on their respective merits while coming to a conclusion though the case was heard ex parte, since those materials/evidences were already there on the record. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this is a case wherein the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to defend his case before the learned Tribunal on the basis of the documents/evidences he has already submitted before the learned Tribunal. 11. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned opinion dated 01.08.2023 and remand the case to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Nagaon, Assam, for hearing the matter from the stage of evidence by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. We direct the petitioner to appear before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Nagaon, Assam, on 5th March, 2026, positively to pursue his case. 13. On his appearance before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Nagaon, Assam, the Tribunal shall carry forward the proceeding as per law. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the directions given above. 15. Registry is directed to send back the TCR to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Nagaon, Assam, immediately. Page No.# 8/8 JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant