Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010287712025 2026:GAU-AS:2507-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/427/2026 SMTI SARIFA @ SWARIFA KHATUN W/O AMJAT ALI, D/O MUNSUR ALI, R/O-VILL-SANDAHKHAITI, P.S.- MAYONG, DIST.-MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 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:THAT ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001. 4:THE OFFICE OF THE STATE CO ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM GUWAHATI-781005 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/18 PIN-782105 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782105 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE MAYONG DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78241 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K PURKAYASTHA, MS M DAS,MS A HUSSAIN,MR. S SHARMA,MR. S MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 16.02.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A.K. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.3; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.5. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 18.07.2009, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon, Assam, in Case No. F.T.(D) 451/2006, arising out of Police Ref. Case No. Page No.# 3/18 3145/97 dated 12.04.1997, thereby declaring the petitioner, namely, Sarifa @ Swarifa Khatun to be a foreigner under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 3. It may be stated that the impugned opinion was passed in common with Case No. F.T.(D) 133/2006- State of Assam v. Smt. Basanti Mandal, arising out of Police Ref. Case No. 4096/98 dated 12.01.1998. But that part of the opinion which relates to F.T.(D) 133/2006, is not under challenge in this writ petition. 4. This writ petition, to assail the opinion dated 18.07.2009, was filed on 19.12.2025, i.e. after 16 years, 5 months, 1 day (or 5998 days). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address the Court on the inordinate delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to explain the delay in assailing the opinion dated 18.07.2009, by filing this writ petition on 19.12.2025, has submitted that the notice of the proceeding was never served on the petitioner. It was submitted that as per the impugned opinion, one counsel, namely, Md. Mafidul Islam had appeared in the case and by filing petition no. 358 dated 09.01.2007, prayed for time to file written statement. The learned Tribunal has also recorded that the vakalatnama was not signed by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that though the State had examined witnesses, but the Gaonburah, in whose presence the notice was shown to be served on the petitioner, was not examined. It has been submitted that the process server has purportedly served notice upon the petitioner on 11.12.2006, and shown as if upon service of notice, the petitioner had put her right-hand thumb impression and thereafter, the notice was shown to have been served on the petitioner in the presence of the Govt. Gaonburah. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court may call for the records and send Page No.# 4/18 the said right-hand thumb impression appearing in the process server’s report for forensic examination, if the petitioner’s statement is not believed. 6. Moreover, it has been submitted that the Local Verification Officer (LVO for short) report annexed to the writ petition would show that the LVO had made a perfunctory enquiry. It was also submitted that the name of her husband is Amjat Ali, but in the proceeding and the process issued, the name of her husband was recorded as Ajmat Ali. Thus, it has been submitted that the petitioner was not the intended person against whom the proceeding was registered. 7. Accordingly, it has been submitted that for the said reasons, as the petitioner was not served with any notice, she did not take any steps, which resulted in the passing of the impugned ex parte opinion. 8. It was submitted that pursuant to the ex parte opinion dated 18.07.2009, the police personnel had come to her house on 07.07.2025, searching for her and this is how she came to know about the ex parte passed against her and thereafter, she had procured the certified copies of relevant documents and orders on 10.07.2025 and filed this writ petition on 19.12.2025. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has annexed all the relevant documents in this writ petition, which would go on to show that the petitioner and other family members are all citizens of India. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the voters lists of 1966, 1970, 1975, 1986, 1993, 1997, 2017, and 2020, certificate from the Gaon Pradhan and Gaon Panchayat, PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) of her parents and herself, and PAN Card. Page No.# 5/18 10. The petitioner has obtained a copy of the voter list of 1970, which discloses the name of her father, Rustam Ali, as a voter of village Lathima, under Rupahihat Police Station in the district of Nagaon, under 86 No. Dhing LAC. It is also submitted that no member of her family is facing any proceeding, suspecting them to be foreigners. It was submitted that her maternal family members and her husband have been regularly casting their respective votes in all the elections. It is also stated that the names of the petitioner along with her husband appeared in the voter list of 2005 and she has been casting her vote thereafter. 11. Accordingly, it has been submitted that this is a fit and proper case for giving the petitioner one opportunity to contest the proceedings by filing her written statement and evidence as her valuable citizenship right would be extinguished if the ex parte opinion is not interfered with. 12. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has submitted that if the petitioner had disputed her identity as a proceedee and the thumb impression in the service report, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, does not prohibit a Tribunal from passing appropriate orders for ends of justice, which would include power of the learned Tribunal to recall its ex parte opinion for good and sufficient causes. Accordingly, it is submitted that, there is a substantial delay in assailing the impugned opinion, which cannot be condoned and/or ignored on account of delay and laches. Accordingly, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has opposed the prayer to admit this writ petition for hearing and for granting bail to the petitioner. 13. On perusal of the pleadings and documents annexed to the writ petition, it is seen that the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO for short) for 79 Page No.# 6/18 Jagiroad Assembly Constituency, in course of intensive revision of rolls, as directed by the Election Commission of India, having found the name of the petitioner in the voters list of 1997, had doubted the citizenship of the petitioner. The Local Verification Officer (LVO for short) was directed to make an enquiry and accordingly, the LVO had submitted a report dated 08.10.1997, marking the column nos. 9 to 14 as “nil”, but apprehension was expressed that the petitioner had come from “Bangladesh” after 25.03.1971. Accordingly, the ERO had submitted a format for reference to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon and the said authority, had forwarded the reference to the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, which was the competent authority under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals), Act, 1983 and the Rules made thereunder, expressing that the petitioner had entered into India from Bangladesh on or after 1971. The reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon as ‘D’ Case No. 3145/97, where ‘D’ stands for ‘doubtful voter’. 14. In this regard the learned standing counsel for the Border and FT matters and the learned standing counsel for the NRC has cited the case of Shukurjan Nessa @ Sukurjan v Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 245/2019, decided on 28.02.2025, where the said aspect of the matter has been clarified. The relevant part of the order, on which reliance has been placed, are extracted hereinbelow:- 14. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference was blank and not properly filled up and therefore, the grounds of suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner has not been furnished to her is taken up first. 15. In this case, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, on receipt of communication dated 16.03.1998, issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, 44 No. Jania L.A.C., which is accompanied with a three page Local Verification Report (Annexure-A) by one Sri Khagen Kalita, J.E. In Page No.# 7/18 the said LVO Report dated 17.10.1997, it has been mentioned at two places to the effect that no documents produced during field verification. 16. Therefore, this is not a case where any enquiry was made under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 or Rules framed thereunder, where investigation is done under the authority of the Superintendent of Police (Border). The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police (Border) is the prescribed authority to make reference before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal constituted under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and Rules framed thereunder. 17. There is an important facet, which is contained in the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin (supra), which must be referred to. We are in respectful agreement with the said judgment and therefore, paragraphs 11 to 22 thereof are quoted below:- 11. In the year 1997, Election Commission of India had undertaken an intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam as apprehensions were expressed from various quarters that the electoral rolls were infested with the names of foreigners/illegal migrants. In the course of this exercise citizenship status of as many as 3,13,046 persons whose names were in the draft voters lists were found to be doubtful and accordingly they were marked as doubtful “D” voters in the electoral rolls after local verification. 12. Legality of this exercise was challenged before this Court in HRA Choudhury Vs Election Commission of India, reported in 2002 (1) GLT 1. The challenge made was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. In HRA Choudhury (supra) this Court examined the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 of the Election Commission of India laying down the procedure to carry out the exercise. 12.1. As per paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines the Electoral Registration Officer was required to consider the verification report received from the Local Verification Officer. If he was satisfied on such report and such other material/information as may be available about the eligibility of a person, he should allow his name to continue on the electoral roll. Where, however, he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, he was required to refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 as the case may be. For convenience of the Electoral Registration Officers, Election Commission devised proformas. 12.2. As per paragraph 3.9, after the case of a person was referred by the Electoral Registration Officer to the competent authority, he Page No.# 8/18 should wait for the decision of the relevant Tribunal in relation to that person and act according to such decision. 12.3. As per paragraph 3.10, where the relevant Tribunal decided that any such person was not a citizen of India, Electoral Registration Officer should proceed under Rule 21 A of the Registration of Electors Rolls, 1960 to have the name of such person deleted from the electoral roll before it was finally published. 12.4. This Court in HRA Choudhury (supra) held that such guidelines and decision of the Election Commission were in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution of India besides conforming to the principles of natural justice. It was held that such guidelines cannot be held to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or partiality. 13. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 is no longer in existence, the same having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665. Therefore, in so far paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 is concerned, the reference would be under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 14. The above exercise was repeated in the year 2005 with the Election Commission of India again going for intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam taking 01.01.2005 as the qualifying date. In this connection, guidelines dated 17.06.2004 were issued by the Election Commission of India. Paragraph 2.2 of the guidelines dealt with “D” voters. It was mentioned that the guidelines issued in 1997 would be followed while dealing with such category of persons. Paragraph 8 dealt with verification by Electoral Registration Officers. It laid down the procedure while carrying out such verification including verification by Local Verification Officer. As per paragraph 8.6, Local Verification Officer would conduct the verification by making an on the spot visit and the person concerned could adduce any one or more of the documents mentioned therein in support of his claim as a citizen of India. After due verification, the Local Verification Officer was required to submit his report in the prescribed format. Under paragraph 8.8, Electoral Registration Officer on receipt of the verification report from the Local Verification Officer should consider the same. Where he was satisfied about the eligibility of a person, he should allow the name of such person to continue on the electoral roll but where he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person he should refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 in a Page No.# 9/18 prepared format (Annexure-B to the guidelines dated 17.06.2004) to the competent authority for making reference to the Tribunal and await the decision of such Tribunal. 15. As pointed out by Mr. Barua, in Mameja Khatun (supra) a Single Bench of this Court directed that “D” voters should not be allowed to cast their votes with the clarification that “D” voters would include persons whose names were included in the electoral rolls but their citizenship was doubted or disputed and also those whose cases were pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. This decision of the learned Single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 114/2011 (State Vs Mameja Khatun). By the judgment and order dated 13.10.2015, the Division Bench directed Election Commission of India and other authorities to implement the directions of the Single Bench in letter and spirit. 16. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that in WP(C) No. 274/2009 filed by Assam Public Works which is pending before the Supreme Court of India wherein NRC updation exercise in the State of Assam is being monitored by the Supreme Court of India, on 25.10.2013, Supreme Court clarified that as far as persons in the “D” list are concerned, undoubtedly they were doubtful voters and therefore their names could not be included unless the NRC is updated and unless the Foreigners Tribunals declared them to be Indian citizens. 17. The Foreigners Act, 1946 is an act to confer upon the Central Government certain powers in respect of foreigners. This Act provides for the exercise of certain powers by the Central Government in respect of the entry of foreigners into India; their presence in India and their departure therefrom. Section 2 (a) defines a “foreigner” to mean a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 3 confers power to the Central Government to make orders making provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or their continued presence therein. 17.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Central Government made the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. As per order 2 (1), the Central Government may by order refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to a Tribunal to be constituted for the purpose for its opinion. 18. Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India had issued notification dated 19.04.1958 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-(1) of Article 258 of Page No.# 10/18 the Constitution of India whereby the President with the consent of the State Government concerned entrusted to the Governments of each of the States mentioned therein including the State of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Another notification dated 17.02.1976 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 258 (1) of the Constitution entrusting the Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) under the Government of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 within their respective jurisdictions subject to the conditions mentioned therein which included the condition that exercise of such functions would be in respect of nationals of Bangladesh and that while exercising such functions, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) shall comply with such general or special directions as the Government of Assam or the Central Government may issue from time to time. 19. Article 258 of the Constitution deals with power of the Union to confer powers etc on States in certain cases. Clause (1) of Article 258 starts with a non-obstante clause. It says that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. Clause (3) provides for making of payment by the Government of India to the State concerned such sum as may be agreed upon or in default of agreement through arbitration in respect of any extra- cost of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of powers and duties of the Government of India conferred or imposed upon a State Government. 20. Thus, under the Central Government notifications dated 19.04.1958 and 17.02.1976, Government of Assam, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) have been delegated the power to make reference to the Foreigners Tribunal under order 2 (1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to seek opinion as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 21. Thus from the above, what transpires is that there are two categories of “D” voters:- (i). those who were marked as “D” voters in the electoral roll by the Electoral Registration Officer following enquiry by Local Verification Officer; and (ii). those whose references are pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. Page No.# 11/18 22. In so far Electoral Registration Officer is concerned the exercise undertaken by him while marking a person as a “D” voter in the electoral roll is a quasi judicial exercise. If he holds the view after examining the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer that the concerned person is not a citizen of India he is required to forward the case of that person to the competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police. If it is so forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police has to make a reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunals under order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 based on the report received from the Electoral Registration Officer. Question of making further enquiry by the Superintendent of Police in such a case would not arise because enquiry has already been made by the Electoral Registration Officer by exercising quasi judicial powers and the Superintendent of Police cannot sit over such decision of the Electoral Registration Officer. He has to forward the same by making the reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunal for its opinion. 17. The said judgment by the learned Single Judge has stood affirmed by the virtue of judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the case of Moslem Mondal (supra) and Amina Khatun (supra) to support his contention that if LVO report is blank, the reference is vitiated. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that as per the contents of para-10 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, suspecting the respondent therein as illegal migrant within the meaning of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, made a reference under Section 8 (1) of the said Act read with Rule 9 (A) of the Rules framed thereunder and accordingly, Case No. 1311/2003 was registered before the IM(D)T, Barpeta and the said proceeding was subsequently transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal and registered as F.T. Case No. 243/2006. Therefore, in the said case, reference was not made by Electoral Registration Officer (EVO for short). Hence, the decision of Moslem Mondal (supra), being distinguishable on facts, is not found to help the petitioner in any manner. 19. However, in the case of Amina Khatun (supra), which was decided on 28.04.2022, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), based on LVO by the ERO. But when the said writ petition was being heard and decided by a Coordinate Bench, it appears that the previous decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 456, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019, decided on 29.07.2019, were not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that under the well settled Page No.# 12/18 principles of stare decisis, the decision in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) would be per incurium. Accordingly, the decision rendered in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) will also not be of any help to the petitioner. 20. In the present case, the proceedings which were hitherto pending before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals were transferred by the Supreme Court of India to the Foreigners Tribunal vide directions issued in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). The said fact has been stated in para-1 of the impugned opinion. Hence, this Court would refrain from making any observations on the LVO Report in this case because the Foreigners Tribunals would have no power or jurisdiction to remand the reference back to the Superintendent of Police (Border) for a fresh enquiry by the LVO/ERO. 21. Therefore, the challenge to the proceeding before the learned Foreigners Tribunal on the ground that certain paragraphs and/or columns of the Local Verification Officer’s (LVO) Report, as forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) were left blank, is held to be not maintainable on facts and in law morefully referred to hereinbefore. The point of determination no. (i) is answered accordingly.” 15. In this case, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, had made the reference to the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Morigaon on 24.12.1997. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), had transferred all the references pending before the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal to the Foreigners Tribunal having jurisdiction. Therefore, as observed by this Court in the case of Shukurjan Nessa @ Sukurjan (supra), this Court would exercise restraint in making any comment on the form by which reference has been made because pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court of India, the said IM(D)T reference was transferred from the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Morigaon to the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon, having jurisdiction. 16. As per the service report, notice of the proceedings was served on the petitioner on 11.12.2006 and she has received it and in acknowledgment Page No.# 13/18 thereof, she had put her right-hand thumb impression on the process server's report. As per the said notice, the date of appearance was mentioned as 09.01.2007. As per the impugned opinion, Md. Mafidul Islam, a learned counsel had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 09.01.2007, and took an adjournment. The vakalatnama produced, did not contain the signature of the petitioner. 17. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims to have been born on 06.01.1978 and therefore, she had acquired right of franchise on attaining the age of 18 years, i.e. 1996. However, though the petitioner claims that her name had appeared in the voter list of 1997, but the petitioner has not annexed a photocopy of certified copy of any voters list showing her name. However, the petitioner has annexed a photocopy of the uncertified copy of the electoral roll of 2017, showing the name of one Swarifa Khatun, wife of Munsur Ali, female, age- 51 years at serial no. 667 and the said electoral roll also contains the name of Munsur Ali as voter serial no. 666, son of Ahmed Ali, male, age- 53 years. The petitioner has annexed a photocopy of certified copy of the electoral roll of 2020, showing the name of one Charifa Khatun, wife of Munsur Ali, female, age- 42 years and one Munsur Ali, son of Ahmed Ali, male, age- 55 years. She has also annexed a photocopy of the certified copy of the electoral roll of 2024, showing the name of one Charifa Khatun, wife of Munsur Ali, female, age- 46 years. The petitioner has annexed a photocopy of an Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) of Swarifa Khatun, showing Munsur Ali as her relation; PAN Card in the name of Sharifa Khatun, daughter of Munsur Ali, with date of birth as 01.01.1975. However, in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has disclosed her date of birth as 06.01.1978. The petitioner has annexed a photocopy of the certificate dated 18.06.2015, issued by the Secretary, Lehpati Page No.# 14/18 Gaon Panchayat, stating that the petitioner was married to Amjat Ali and shifted her residence to Phalimari Habi after marriage, but the said photocopy discloses the application of whitener to overwrite the name of her husband. Moreover, the admissibility of the said certificate appears to be doubtful because of unauthorised use of the State Emblem. Thus, after her citizenship was doubted after her name appears in the voters list of 1997, and enquiry was ordered by the ERO, the petitioner has got her name enrolled in voters list of other villages by claiming herself to be the wife of Munsur Ali by avoiding disclosure of her husband’s actual name for reasons best known to her. It is difficult to accept that the said Munsur Ali is the father of the petitioner because of the low age difference in the voters lists of 2017, 2020 and 2024, as stated hereinbefore. 18. It is interesting to note that the petitioner was doubted as a voter when her name appeared in the voter list of 1997. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner claims that she had married her husband, Amjat Ali on 07.08.1993, and that she had a matrimonial dispute with her husband and after dowry was demanded, she was subjected to cruelty and therefore, she had left her matrimonial home in the year 2003 and started to reside with her father, where she is residing till date. However, on the contrary, in the same paragraph, she also claims to have not been divorced and to have good relations with her husband and that her husband has been maintaining her till date. The petitioner claims to have five sons and four daughters. It is difficult to believe that after giving birth to 9 (nine) children, the husband would torture the petitioner for dowry, inflict cruelty and evict her from her matrimonial home. There is no explanation as to what happened to her nine children after she left the matrimonial home. 19. As per the statement made in paragraph 11, the petitioner was Page No.# 15/18 married on 07.08.1993 and she was driven out of the matrimonial home in the year 2003, which would mean that the petitioner was at her matrimonial home for 20 years. As per the statement made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, as on 15.12.2025, her nine children are aged 31, 29, 27, 25, 23, 21, 19, 17 and 14 years respectively. Thus, it is apparent that four children were purportedly born after the petitioner had allegedly left her matrimonial home in the year 2003, which makes the petitioner’s story not prima facie believable. 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. However, it is clarified that the documents annexed to the writ petition have been referred to only to find that the story of the petitioner is not prima facie believable. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to further clarify that the observations made by the Court would not constitute a final opinion on any of the annexed documents and therefore, the petitioner shall not be prejudiced by any observations of this Court in respect of any of the documents referred to in this order. 21. Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal, showing no hurry, passed an ex parte opinion on 18.07.2009, and the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post-25.03.1971. 22. The petitioner has not made any complaint before any authority or Court against her learned counsel for appearing in the proceeding without her authorisation and thereby committing professional misconduct. The petitioner has not annexed a photocopy of any voters list enlisting her husband’s name. The petitioner has also not filed any FIR to question her right-hand thumb impression in the process server’s report and against the Government Page No.# 16/18 Gaonburah for falsely identifying her in the process server’s report. The petitioner has also not preferred any review petition before the learned Foreigners Tribunal. 23. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is aware that her citizenship had been questioned as a “doubtful voter” after her name appeared in the voters list of 1997 in her matrimonial home. Thus, she went to her parental home and had her name enlisted in the voters list. 24. 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 with 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. 25. 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 Page No.# 17/18 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. 26. The petitioner, through her learned counsel, had appeared before the learned Tribunal on 09.01.2007 and then defaulted to appear and contest the proceeding. Thus, an ex parte opinion was rendered on opinion dated 18.07.2009. This writ petition has been filed on 19.12.2025, i.e. after 16 years, 5 months, 1 day (or 5998 days). 27. The story made up by the petitioner appears to be just an afterthought to somehow cover-up the default which the petitioner had made by not contacting her learned counsel and to file her written statement and evidence in the proceeding. 28. 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. Therefore, the case of Mukti Rani Paul @ Mukta Paul v. Union of India & Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 667, cited by the learned counsel does not help the petitioner in any manner because in paragraph 19 thereof, this Court had recorded its satisfaction that during the relevant period, the petitioner of the said case was suffering from ailments from 1989 to 2010. In this case, the facts are not similar as indicated hereinbefore. Page No.# 18/18 29. In this case, it is evident that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in assailing the impugned opinion. The petitioner’s learned advocate did appear on her behalf, but then the petitioner had defaulted in appearing. The failure to appear and take 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. 30. Accordingly, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails on the ground of unexplained and enormous delay and laches of 16 years, 5 months, 1 day (or 5998 days) to assail the opinion dated 18.07.2009, by filing this writ petition on 19.12.2025. 31. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage without issuing notice upon the respondents. 32. There shall be no order as to cost. 33. The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC shall communicate a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and 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