Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010034162026 2026:GAU-AS:3619-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1222/2026 MD ALI @ MAHAMMAD ALI S/O- JAHAR @ JAHAR ALI, VILL- AKABASTI BANGALI, P.S.- RANGAPARA/CHARIDUAR, DIST.- SONITPUR (ASSAM), PIN- 784001 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, NEW DELHI- 1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SONITPUR TEZPUR PIN- 784001 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) SONITPUR TEZPUR PIN- 784001 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC) ASSAM Page No.# 2/9 HOUSE FED 2ND FLOOR BONPHOOL NAGAR GUWAHATI- 3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. M R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 12.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned CGC; Ms. S. Kataky, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. 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 22.10.2020, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 7th, Sonitpur, Balipara in Case No. FTDC 338/16, arising out of Ref. No. TZ(B) 99/1100, dated 30.08.99, thereby declaring the petitioner, namely, Md. Ali @ Mahammad Ali to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. After appearance, the petitioner had filed his written statement and thereafter, filed his evidence-on-affidavit as DW-1 and exhibited a few. 4. In his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner as DW-1 had reiterated the statements made in the written statement. He had stated that he was born and brought up at Vill. Akabasti Bangali, P.S. Chariduar and Dist. Page No.# 3/9 Sonitpur, Assam. The correct name of the father of the petitioner was Late Jahur Ali @ Jahur Ali Sheikh. He had studied in Kekakuli Primary School, Kekakuli and exhibited the school certificate as Ext. A. His name appeared in the voter’s list of No. 74 Rangapara LAC and his name also appeared in the voter’s list of 1971 of No. 74 Rangapara LAC in Sl No. 196 of House No. 55, which was exhibited as Ext.B. He had also exhibited registered sale Deed, bearing No. 1759 of 1968 dated 02.04.1968 as Ext.C. The land revenue receipts dated 01.02.1970, 26.03.1981, 26.03.1981 and 07.06.1984 are exhibited as Ext. C1, C2, C3 and C4 respectively. He had also stated that his father’s name appeared in the voter’s list of 1974 of 74 Rangapara LAC in Sl. No. 46 of House No. 25. The petitioner also stated that his brother namely Ahmat Ali has cated his votes in the year 1989 in Sl. No. 441. The voter’s list of 1979 and 1989 of the No. 74 Rangapara showing the name of petitioner’s father is exhibited as Ext. D and Ext.E respectively. 5. The petitioner was put questions under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein he replied that no foreigner case is pending against any of the family members. As per the impugned opinion, the five exhibited documents were signed by the learned Member as a proof of submission, but not as a proof of document. 6. The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the pleadings and evidence, held that though the petitioner had referred Ext.A, which is the School certificate but it was not proved in accordance with law. The school certificate had also used State Emblem. However, this Court had held in the case of Jainaluddin Vs. Union of India WP(C) 3071/2016, decided on 03.04.2018, held that due unauthorized use of State emblem under the State Emblem of India (Regulation of rules, 2007) the certificate is inadmissible in nature. Page No.# 4/9 7. In respect of Ext. B, the voter’s list of 1971 of Rangapara LAC, it was held that the document is a computer generated copy wherein serial no. 196, name of Jahur Ali is reflected. But the document is not proved by the proceedee, by examining the issuing authority, and it was also observed that mere exhibiting of copies of voter’s list not enough but it would have to be proved comparing with original through the testimony of the lawful custodian. 8. In respect of Ext.C the sale deed executed by Jahur Ali Sheikh in the year 1968, it was held that its contents were not proved in accordance with law. It was stated that this Court had held in the case of Malida Bibi Vs. Union of India WP(C) Case No. 3910/2016, decided on 12.02.2018, held that in respect of photo copy made from certified copy, the contents are to proved on the basis of primary evidence i.e. original elector roll with the testimony of the lawful custodian of the primary evidence. 9. In respect of Ext C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 which are land revenue receipts, it was held that the proceedee did not stated about the revenue receipt in his written statement. Therefore, the land revenue receipts transverse the written statement which is not permitted in law. These documents are also not proved on record. Therefore, it was held that these documents are inadmissible in nature. 10. In respect of Ext.D, which is the voters list of 1979 of 74 Rangapara LAC, wherein at Sl no. 46, the name of the projected father of the petitioner is shown as Jahor Ali Sheikh, it was observed that in the voter’s list of 1971, Ext. B, the house number is 55, which is not explained. 11. In respect of Ext. E, the voter list of 1989, of 74 Rangapara LAC wherein Sl No. 441 and 442 which contain the name of Ahamat Ali projected Page No.# 5/9 (brother) and Jarina Khatun are reflected, it was held that the petitioner has not stated in his written statement about this voter’s list and accordingly, the said exhibit was rejected. Thus, it was held that the petitioner was a foreigner who has illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 12. There is no material on record to show that the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is incorrect. Hence, the Court does not find any reason to differ with the opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal. 13. On the other hand, it is seen that the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 18.02.2026 to assail the opinion dated 22.10.2020, i.e. after 5 years, 4 month. The said delay is explained merely by stating that the petitioner is poor and unable to manage the cost and expenditure of approaching this Court. Such a vague statement cannot be accepted as if the petitioner was prevented from availing free legal aid, which he did not. The petitioner had obtained the certified copy of the impugned opinion on 14.09.2021 and since then, by virtue of the long delay of over five years, he is deemed to have accepted the opinion without any demur, with full knowledge of the fact that he has been declared to be a foreigner, who has illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory. Thus, the writ petition is also not maintainable in view of the inordinate delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion. 14. The Supreme Court of India, in paragraph 46 of the case of Urban Improvement Trust (supra), has reiterated the law that undue delay in approaching the Court can be a ground for refusing relief and it has been expressed that that only in exceptional cases, delay can be condoned. The said paragraph 46 is quoted below:- “46. As regards the appellant’s challenge to the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing of the writ petitions by the respondents, we are of the view that the same needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. While it is true that the courts have consistently held that undue delay in approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the Page No.# 6/9 courts have also recognized that in exceptional cases, where the impugned action is patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the delay must be condoned.” 15. In respect of the well settled legal preposition that delay and laches are fatal to a belated challenge to the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunals, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Jonali Das v. Union of India, 2018 (5) GLT 492: (2018) 0 Supreme (Gau) 1186. Paragraph 9 thereof is as follows:- “9. In Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali Vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No.4971/2018, disposed of on 01.08.2018], this Court had observed as follows:- "It is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has been in public domain in the State of Assam and has engaged the attention of the people. Interest of the State is of paramount importance in that unabated influx has the potential to affect the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Citizenship of a person, no doubt, is a very valuable right and should be zealously guarded. There is no gainsaying the fact that a person who is alleged to be a foreigner must be given due and reasonable opportunity to establish that he is a citizen of India. However, if a person does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own risk and peril as grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. Right to a fair hearing or 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." 16. 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. Page No.# 7/9 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner had all the relevant documents, but due to wrong legal advice, he could not exhibit several documents and thus, submitted that for ends of justice the matter be remanded back to enable the petitioner to prove additional documents. The said submission cannot be accepted as one cannot be relegated back to the Foreigners Tribunal, merely to enable him to fill-up the lacuna. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had made a prayer before the learned Tribunal to prove further documents, which was refused. In the said context, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Ajbahar Ali v. Union of India, (2025) 0 Supreme (Gau) 763, wherein it has been 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 of Abu Bokkor Siddique v. Union of India, 2019 (1) GLT 813. 18. In the case of Rashminara Begum v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (4) GLT 346, this Court has held that material facts pleaded would have to be proved by adducing cogent and admissible evidence. Similarly, in the case of Ayesha Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 3 GLR 820, this Court had reiterated that failure to disclose material facts in the written statement would lead to an adverse presumption. Under the scheme of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the petitioner is required to file his/her written statement and produce all documents. The petitioner, in this case, had obtained the certified copy of the impugned opinion on 04.01.2019 and therefore, on the said date, he was aware of the reasons why he was declared to be a foreigner. The petitioner, for more than 7 years, made no complaint against his engaged counsel for Page No.# 8/9 his/her incompetence or for giving him incorrect legal advice or for counsel’s omission to exhibit any document provided to his learned counsel. Thus, the allegations made against the learned counsel of the petitioner, who was engaged in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal are an after-thought, craftily made behind the back of the said learned counsel just to make out a case. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had signed and filed his written statement without being informed of its contents or that he was given false information about its contents. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to hold that no case has been made out by the petitioner for remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take a plea before this Court that due to the ill-advice of his learned counsel, complete disclosures were not made in the written statement and all documents could not be exhibited. If such a prayer is accepted, then the proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals would become a farcical exercise and every time the opinion goes against the proceedee, the High Court would have to remand the matter back to enable the proceedee to amend the written statement and then prove additional documents, which would be an endless exercise. Therefore, the plea that the petitioner did not get proper legal advice, which is alleged in this writ petition, has been discussed, only to be rejected. 19. While exercising certiorari jurisdiction, the Court would refrain from undertaking an exercise to find out if the petitioner had left out or omitted to make proper pleadings or to exhibit certain documents unless it can be demonstrated that the petitioner had made an application before the learned Tribunal and the same was incorrectly rejected. This Court has limited power under certiorari jurisdiction to examine if the order passed by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by perversity, as this Court is not exercising appellate or Page No.# 9/9 revisional jurisdiction while examining the opinion passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal. 20. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails on merit, on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion, and on the ground that the matter cannot be remanded on the reasons assigned by the petitioner in this writ petition. The opinion is not found to be vitiated for any reason whatsoever and cannot be held to be incorrect or perverse. 21. Thus, no interference is called for in respect of the opinion dated 22.10.2020, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 7th, Sonitpur, Balipara in Case No. FTDC 338/16, arising out of Ref. No. TZ(B)/99/1100 dated 30.08.99. The consequences of the said opinion shall follow. The writ petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 22. There shall be no order as to cost. 23. 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