Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010187952019 2026:GAU-AS:4427 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5789/2019 KANAN DHAR @ KANAN SUTRADHAR D/O LT. UPENDRA SUTRADHAR, W/O LT. NITAI DHAR, R/O VILL. NO. 1 NAMANI GAON, P.O. AND P.S. RANGAPARA, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR P.O. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) SONITPUR P.O. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS A BORAH,MR. F A HASSAN,MS A DAS Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 27.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. F.A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. 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 22.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 7th Sonitpur, Balipara, in Case No. FTDC 563/16, arising out of Ref. No. TZP(B)/483/98 dated 17.07.1998, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. In view of the order which is proposed to be passed, the statements in the written statement and the nature of evidence tendered by the petitioner has Page No.# 3/5 not been elaborately discussed in this order. 4. It would suffice to mention that on receipt of the reference, the petitioner had stated in her written statement that she had been declared to be not a foreigner by an opinion dated 15.03.2016, passed by the same learned Tribunal i.e. learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 7th Sonitpur, Balipara, in FT Case No. 159/15, registered on the basis of a reference forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur, Tezpur. 5. Accordingly, she took the plea of the present proceedings being barred by the principle of res judicata. Along with the written statement, a copy of the said opinion was annexed as Annexure-A, and in her evidence, the petitioner had tendered the copy of this opinion, and exhibited the same as Ext.F. 6. In respect of Ext.F, the following discussion has been made by the learned Tribunal: “Exhibit–F is the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of 159/2015 passed on 15.03.2016 by this Tribunal declaring Kamal Dhar is an Indian Citizen on the ground of not rebuttal by the state of Assam, this approach of this Tribunal passed by my predecessor MR. A.K. Sharma Member, F.T 7th, Sonitpur is not satisfied in my consideration, as it is a contrary to law as laid down in full base judgment of the Guwahati High Court in state of Assam –vs– Moslem Mandal, reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809. Under section 9 of the Foreigners Act burden is on the Proceede to prove that she is not a foreigner. But this burden never shift to the state. The question of rebuttal by the state arise only if the Proceede adduces evidence which are admissible, proved and have relevance. (refer State of Assam –VS– Ohab Ali decided on 29.05.2018 in wpc case no- 2641/17), in this case no iota of admissibility, proved, therefore, the principle of Resjudicata cannot be applied in foreigners case, therefore this order is not considered and decided at my independent view.” 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the FT and Border matters has made her submission in support of the impugned opinion by submitting that the opinion dated 15.03.2016 has taken into consideration only the birth certificate Page No.# 4/5 issued by the Gaonburah and the copy of the voters list, which were exhibited as Ext.A and Ext.B respectively. It is submitted that the Gaonburah certificate cannot be a proof of birth and cannot be used as a document for citizenship. Moreover, only by the voters list of 1966 (Ext.B) and the birth certificate of the Gaonburah (Ext.A), the petitioner cannot be connected to a projected father. Accordingly, she has supported the impugned opinion. 8. In the case of Abdul Kuddus vs. Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 604, it has been held by Full Bench of the Supreme Court of India that the order of the Foreigners Tribunal is a quasi-judicial order and the principle of res judicata would apply. This principle has also been followed by this Court in the case of Jahir Ali vs. Union of India (2021) 3 GLR 105:2021 (2) GLT 596. 9. Therefore, the case of State of Assam vs. Ohab Ali, WP(C) 2641/2017, decided on 29.05.2018, which was referred to by the learned Tribunal to discard the plea of res judicata, cannot be said to be good law in view of the Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus (supra). 10. Therefore, the Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, 7th Sonitpur, Balipara, for a fresh decision by taking into consideration the observations made in this order. In order to facilitate a fresh opinion, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned opinion dated 22.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 7th Sonitpur, Balipara, in Case No. FTDC 563/16, arising out of Ref. No. TZP(B)/483/98 dated 17.07.1998. 11. The petitioner, namely, Smti Kanan Dhar @ Kanan Sutradhar, who is duly represented by her learned counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Tribunal, 7th Sonitpur, Balipara on Page No.# 5/5 30.04.2026 without fail and by producing a certified copy of the order, await further orders from the said learned Tribunal. 12. The Registry shall send back the records expeditiously along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal. 13. The writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant