Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010246422024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/542/2026 SUFIYA BEGUM ALIAS SUPRIYA BEGUM D/O- KOSSIMUDDIN, W/O- MD. AJIT ALI, R/O- NO. 2 PANBOTIPUR, P.S. BIHUPURIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF INDIA (GRIHAMANTRALAYA), NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (NIRBACHAN SADAN) ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001. 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005. 5:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR FULL STOPPAGE NO LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR-787001. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ASSAM (BOARDER) LAKHIMPUR Page No.# 2/8 FULL STOPPAGE- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR MINTU SAIKIA, MS R DUTTA 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: 06.02.2026 (A.M. Kalita, J) Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned CGC for the respondent no. 1; Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, representing the respondent no. 3; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, representing the respondent no. 5 as well as Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, F.T., Border matters and NRC, representing the respondent nos. 2, 4 & 6. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Sufiya Begum @ Supriya Begum, has assailed the ex parte order dated 12.01.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal.-1, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam, in Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 4839/11 (District No. 393/99), by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner as per Section 2(a) of the Foreigners’ Act, 1946, who has entered Assam illegally on or after 25.03.1971. 3. On receipt of the reference from the Superintendent of Police (Border), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, the aforesaid F.T. case, i.e., Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 4839/11 was registered. Page No.# 3/8 4. Since by filing the instant case, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte order dated 12.01.2018, after hearing the counsel representing the respective parties, this Court has decided to dispose of the matter in motion stage itself. 5. From the order sheet of the Foreigners’ Tribunal.-1 (herein after referred to as the learned Tribunal), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, which has been annexed as Annexure-‘F’ to the instant writ petition, it is seen that notice of proceeding was issued on the petitioner on 30.08.2017, which was made returnable on 14.09.2017. On 14.09.2017, the learned counsel engaged, appeared before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner and sought for another date, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal and fixed 21.09.2019 as the next date for appearance of the petitioner. On 21.09.2017, the petitioner was present before the learned Tribunal and sought for some more time. On 09.10.2017, the petitioner was present along with her engaged counsel and submitted a petition seeking more time to file her written statement and documents. Time was allowed, fixing 17.10.2017 as the next date by the learned Tribunal. On 17.10.2017, the petitioner was absent without any steps. On 31.10.2017, the petitioner filed a petition seeking more time to file her written statement. The learned Tribunal allowed time but in default ex-parte order. On 10.11.2017, the petitioner submitted another petition seeking further time for evidence and representation as she could not get the certified documents from the Election office. On 21.11.2017, the petitioner was absent by filing a petition. On 11.12.2017, the petitioner was present and sought for another date as her engaged counsel was absent. On 26.12.2017, the petitioner was absent with a petition. On 05.01.2018, the petitioner was absent with a petition. On 09.01.2018, the petitioner was absent without any steps. On 12.01.2018, the petitioner was absent and as the case was fixed for ex parte order, the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal ex parte. 6. From the above dates and orders mentioned in the order sheet, it is seen that as many as 10(ten) dates were given to the petitioner to file her representation/written Page No.# 4/8 statement. However, the petitioner failed to submit her representation in spite of providing sufficient time by the learned Tribunal. Thus, by the impugned ex parte order dated 12.01.2018, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 7. As the instant writ petition has been filed to assail the impugned ex parte order dated 12.01.2018, after about 6 years, on 18.11.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to make submission and explain the huge and inordinate delay and laches in filing the instant writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Paragraph nos. 7, 9 & 10 of the writ petition, submits that the petitioner is an illiterate and ignorant lady and therefore, she failed to understand the consequence of the summons. He submits that the entire scenario was understood by the petitioner when the police visited the house of the petitioner in search of her. But, as she was not present in her house, the police could not arrest her and on enquiry, her husband came to know that an ex parte order has been passed against her by the learned Tribunal. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the said ex parte order on 30.02.2024 and obtained the same on 30.04.2024. He further submits that the petitioner last appeared on 21.09.2017, but on subsequent dates, the petitioner remained absent and as a result, the learned Tribunal passed the ex parte order. He submits that the petitioner is in possession of sufficient documents to prove her citizenship. However, as she was out-of-station and was working as a daily wage labourer and also due to her acute financial hardship, she could not appear before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove her citizenship before the learned Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the learned Tribunal should not have passed the impugned ex parte order as the petitioner had, in fact, appeared before the learned Tribunal on various occasions along with her engaged counsel but, due to non receipt of the relevant documents, she could not submit her written statement. He submits that since the petitioner is in possession of sufficient documents to prove her Page No.# 5/8 citizenship, she should not be made to suffer and she should be given one opportunity to prove her Indian citizenship by contesting the reference. Therefore, he submits that the impugned ex parte order needs to be set aside and quashed and the case should be remanded back to the Foreigners’ Tribunal-1, Lakhimpur, for the ends of justice. 10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, F.T. and Border matters as well as NRC has opposed to the prayer so made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, citing the reason of delay and laches in filing the instant writ petition. He further submits that the grounds of delay that have been mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition are not at all sufficient and convincing. Therefore, he submits that the instant writ petition may be dismissed at once. 11. It is seen that in the instant case, the petitioner duly received the notice which was issued on 30.08.2017 and her engaged counsel appeared on behalf of her on 14.09.2017. It is also seen that the petitioner herself appeared before the learned Tribunal on 21.09.2017. However, after that, on subsequent 11 dates, including the date of passing of the impugned ex parte order, the petitioner remained absent taking time, more or less, for the same reason, i.e., for filing of the written statement. It is seen that though enough opportunity was given to the petitioner, the petitioner did not submit her written statement before the learned Tribunal to prove her Indian citizenship. It was a duty casted upon on the petitioner to appear and contest the proceeding when a reference is made against a Proceedee before a Tribunal. Moreover, under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, it is provided that on receipt of a reference, the learned Tribunal is mandated to dispose of the reference within 60(sixty) days. Therefore, a statutory duty has been casted upon the learned Tribunal to dispose of a reference in a time bound manner without any delay. The learned Foreigners’ Tribunal is not required to wait endlessly for a written statement to be made by the Proceedee to render it’s opinion. 12. Though a submission has been made on behalf of the counsel appearing for the Page No.# 6/8 petitioner that Principle of Natural Justice has been violated in the instant case, as the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner in an ex parte order without giving her an opportunity to represent her case by filing a written statement, this Court is of the view that in the instant case, no violation of such Principles of Natural Justice has occurred, as the same can be seen from the numerous dates/opportunities that have been given to the petitioner to represent her case before the learned Tribunal. 13. This Court, in the case of Ajbahar Ali Vs. Union of India, reported in (2025) 0 Supreme (Gau) 763, had held to the effect that the plea of compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners. Similar opinion has also been expressed by this Court in the case Abu Bokkor Siddique Vs. Union of India, reported in 2019 (1) GLT 813. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, in paragraph 73, has held to the effect that the procedure under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 and the Foreigners’ (Tribunal) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. In paragraph 63, the Supreme Court of India had observed that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the North Eastern region and that their presence has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts. 15. Though the petitioner had appeared before the learned Tribunal and took several Page No.# 7/8 dates to file the written statement, she defaulted to file her written statement and contest the proceeding. Therefore, without having any other option, the learned Tribunal had to pass the ex parte order dated 12.01.2018. 16. From the aforesaid order sheet annexed to the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner last appeared before the Tribunal on 21.09.2017 and thereafter, she did not bother to keep any track of the happening of her case before the learned Tribunal in a proper manner. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner of non-appearance before the learned Tribunal during the proceeding is neither expected nor warranted. Moreover, the delay and laches which has been caused in filing of the instant writ petition, in our considered opinion, is not condonable. Though the ex parte opinion was rendered on 12.01.2018, the instant writ petition is filed only on 18.11.2024 with more than 6 years 10 months delay. The grounds of delay found to be not convincing. In this connection, the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., reported in 2-25 INSC 1104: 2025 Supreme (SC) 1679, while dealing with the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has laid down certain guidelines. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a writ petition, but in the considered opinion of the Court, when a writ petition is filed to assail the opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, under certiorari jurisdiction, the same principles should apply, requiring the petitioner to provide at least some cogent and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in assailing the opinion. 17. Some widely vague statements by the petitioner that she is a poor and illiterate lady and therefore, could not represent her case before the learned Tribunal cannot be accepted as good, cogent and acceptable explanation to entertain this writ petition when the cause of action to file this writ petition arose long time back on 12.01.2018, when the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal. Since the petitioner was aware of the proceeding and she appeared before the learned Tribunal, her conduct of subsequent non-appearances and/or not keeping any track of the proceeding wherein, Page No.# 8/8 she herself was involved, is not acceptable. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has miserably failed to explain the delay and laches in filing the instant writ petition by assailing the impugned ex parte order of the learned Tribunal. 19. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioner is found to be grossly negligent in assailing the impugned ex parte order and defaulted in appearing and taking steps in the proceeding, which is willful and deliberate with full knowledge of the consequences that may follow. 20. Accordingly, in the light of the discussions made above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed on the ground of unexplained and huge delay and laches of 6 years and 10 months of passing of the impugned ex parte order. 21. There shall be no order as to cost. 22. The learned Standing Counsel, F.T. & Border matters as well as NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home & Political (B) Department, so as to send a copy of this order to be made a part of the record of the learned Tribunal for future reference. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant