Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010005022026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/384/2026 MUSSTT NUREZA BEGUM D/O- LT. AMIRUDDIN AHMED W/O- SALAM ALI R/O-VILLAGE- 2 NO. GUMARIGURI FOREST KRISHNASHAMI GAON,P.O. P.S- MERAPANI DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. PIN-785705 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-01. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE ASSAM STATE CO ORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) Page No.# 2/9 GOLAGHAT DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785621 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MS. K DAS,MISS M GOGOI,MR. F A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 30-01-2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.5. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Nureza Begum, has assailed the ex parte opinion dated 15.06.2012, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat, in Case No. FTG.(D) 123/2007 [Corresponding to GFT Case No. 123/07], by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner as per Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, by holding that the petitioner had failed to discharge her burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to dispel the doubt by adducing documentary and oral evidence that she is not a foreigner. Page No.# 3/9 3) The Election Commission of India had ordered extensive revision of electoral rolls for 95 No. Golaghat LAC with reference to qualifying date of 01.01.2005. Accordingly, the entry of the name of the petition as a voter was found doubtful and the Electoral Registration Officer of the said 95 No. Golaghat LAC got the matter verified and thereafter referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Golaghat, under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1985. The said authority thereafter referred the matter before the Foreigners Tribunal. 4) In the notice, issued by the learned Tribunal pursuant to order dated 18.03.2010, it was clearly stated that her nationality was under suspicion. The notice was duly served upon the petitioner and accordingly, she had physically appeared before the learned Tribunal on 26.04.2010 and the case was next fixed on 07.07.2010. However, the petitioner remained absent without steps on 12 (twelve) consecutive dates 07.07.2010, 16.08.2010, 23.09.2010, 28.10.2010, 28.12.2010, 08.04.2011, 10.06.2011, 29.08.2011, 22.11.2011, 16.02.2012, 27.04.2012, and 15.06.2012. Thus, by the impugned ex parte opinion dated 15.06.2012, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. 5) Thus, from the order-sheet annexed to the writ petition, there is no iota of doubt that the notice of the proceeding was duly served on the petitioner and accordingly, she had appeared before the learned Tribunal and though the next date of the proceeding was fixed on 07.07.2010, for filing written statement, the petitioner had failed to appear on 12 (twelve) consecutive dates referred hereinbefore. Thus, with full knowledge of the proceeding, the petitioner did not contest the proceeding. 6) As the present writ petition to assail the impugned ex parte opinion dated 15.06.2012, has been filed after about 13 years, 6 months, 24 Page No.# 4/9 days (i.e. 4955 days) on 08.01.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address the Court on the huge and inordinate delay and laches. 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the statements made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition, has submitted that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate lady, living below the poverty line. On receipt of notice, she had appeared before the learned Tribunal, where she was asked to sign a register and she had put her signature in the register and left, thinking everything was over. It was submitted that the petitioner was not informed about the pending case and therefore, the petitioner remained sitting silently and she came to know about the ex parte opinion only after the police personnel visited the house of the petitioner on 25.05.2025, to take her into custody. 8) It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the reference ex parte because the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 mandated that a reasonable opportunity has to be given to the proceedee to prove his case and therefore, it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to issue and serve a fresh notice of the proceeding. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has all the relevant documents to prove that she is a citizen of India and therefore, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to be heard on merit. It has been submitted that if no opportunity is granted to the petitioner, she would be deprived of the principles of natural justice and shall suffer great injustice and her valuable citizenship right would be irreversibly lost forever. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy available to her. 9) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC had opposed this writ petition on ground of delay and laches. Page No.# 5/9 10) In this case, the ex parte opinion was rendered on 15.06.2012. However, this writ petition to assail the impugned opinion has been filed after about 13 years, 6 months, 24 days on 08.01.2026. The petitioner has admitted in the writ petition that she had appeared before the learned Tribunal on receipt of notice. As per the copy of order-sheet annexed to the writ petition, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Tribunal on 07.07.2010. It has also been admitted that the petitioner had remained absent thereafter. 11) In the considered opinion of the Court, after service of notice on the petitioner, there was no further requirement for the learned Tribunal to verbally explain the case to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal, by order dated 07.07.2010, passed a very clear and specific order, thereby fixing the proceeding on 16.08.2010. Therefore, it was the duty of the petitioner to file her written statement as directed. It is not the case of the petitioner that either the learned Member, or any other staff of the learned Tribunal had obtained the signature of the petitioner on a register after informing her that the case against her was dropped. Thus, having appeared before the learned Tribunal in person and after an order was passed by the learned Tribunal, fixing the proceeding on 16.08.2010, for filing of written statement, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a plea which is contrary to the record. From the order-sheet it is seen that the petitioner had remained unrepresented on 12 (twelve) consecutive dates. 12) The Court is constrained to hold that the Courts and Tribunals, including the Foreigners Tribunal are under no duty to keep on issuing notices to the proceedee after they commit default in appearing in a proceeding. The Court cannot accept that there can be an endless exercise to keep on issuing notices to a litigant after each and every default committed by a litigant. It was a duty cast on the petitioner to appear and contest the proceeding. Moreover, Page No.# 6/9 under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 the mandate of law is for the learned Tribunal to dispose of a reference within 60 (sixty) days. 13) This Court, in the case of Ajbahar Ali v. Union of India, (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. A similar opinion has also been expressed by this Court in the case of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. Union of India, 2019 (1) GLT 813. 14) The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, in paragraph 73, has held to the effect that the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) 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) The petitioner had appeared before the learned Tribunal and then defaulted to appear and contest the proceeding on 12 dates after her first appearance. Thus, an ex parte opinion was rendered on 15.06.2012. The Page No.# 7/9 petitioner was taken into custody on 25.05.2025, and thereafter, she has awakened to assail the said ex parte opinion by filing this writ petition on 04.11.2025, which is about 13 years, 4 months, 16 days or 4955 days after passing of the impugned ex parte opinion. 16) Although the petitioner has blamed her learned counsel engaged to represent her before the learned Tribunal, but the petitioner has not disclosed the name of the learned counsel and it appears that the petitioner is not even accusing her said counsel for committing professional misconduct. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any legal provision, which would compel the learned advocates to continue to take steps in a case when the litigant has stopped communicating with him/her. Thus, the allegations made against the learned counsel engaged by the petitioner are just an afterthought to cover-up the default which the petitioner had made by not contacting her engaged counsel and to file her written statement and evidence in the proceeding. 17) In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 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 Tribunals, 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. 18) A very vague statement by the petitioner that she is poor and that her advocate assured her that nothing would happen cannot be accepted Page No.# 8/9 as a good, cogent and acceptable explanation to entertain this writ petition when cause of action to file this writ petition arose on 15.06.2012, when the petitioner was aware and conscious of the proceeding against her. It is not the case of the petitioner that her family members suffered with such disabilities which prevented them to visit the learned counsel for the petitioner to enquire about the fate of her case. It is also not alleged that the petitioner’s advocate had given her any misleading information, which convinced the petitioner that she was declared as not a foreigner. 19) Therefore, the petitioner is found to be grossly negligent in assailing the impugned order. The default in appearing and in taking steps in the proceeding is willful and deliberate, with full knowledge of the consequences that may follow. Thus, the impugned ex parte opinion cannot be held to be perverse or wrong on any count whatsoever. 20) Though the petitioner has filed several documents in this writ petition, but as this Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from appreciating the documents as a Court or Tribunal of first instance. 21) Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails on the ground of unexplained and enormous delay and laches of approximately 13 years, 6 months, 24 days (i.e. 4955 days) in assailing the impugned ex parte opinion dated 15.06.2012 by filing this writ petition on 08.01.2026. 22) Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. 23) There shall be no order as to cost. 24) The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Page No.# 9/9 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