Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010260652025 2026:GAU-AS:1128- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3891/2025 NAZRUL ISLAM @ NAJRUL ISLAM S/O LATE BASIR UDDIN @ BASAR UDDIN @ BASUR UDDIN @ SEKH BASIRUDDIN @ BASIK, R/O CHAPARMUKH TOWN, P.S. DIGHALIATI, P.S. RAHA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782425 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006 3:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782001 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 782001 Page No.# 2/9 5:THE STATE CO ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) G.S. ROAD LACHIT NAGAR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781003 6:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER NAGAON DIST NAGAO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GHOSH, Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM Linked Case : CS/0/0 NAZRUL ISLAM ALIAS NAJRUL ISLAM SON OF LATE BASIR UDDIN BASAR UDDIN BASUR UDDIN SEKH BASIRUDDIN BASIK RESIDENT OF CHAPARMUKH TOWN POLICE STATION-DIGHALIATI POLICE STATION-RAHA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782425 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 3/9 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI. PIN-781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON DISTRICT NAGAON PIN 782001 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER NAGAON DIST NAGAON PIN 782011 5:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781003 6:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 ------------ Advocate for : MR SUNIL KUMAR CHAKMA Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 28.01.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned Legal Aid counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the Page No.# 4/9 FT matters; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2) The background facts leading to this review petition are as follows:- a. The Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, suspecting the applicant to be an illegal migrant, made a reference before the learned Foreigners Tribunal for an opinion. b. Upon service of notice of the proceeding, the applicant had appeared before the learned Foreigners Tribunal and submitted his written statement of defence on 17.12.2015. Thereafter, on 10.06.2016, the applicant had filed his evidence-on-affidavit. The next date of the proceeding was fixed on 12.07.2016 and since then, the applicant had remained absent and failed to appear for his cross- examination and no steps were taken to prove any documents. c. Thus, having given reasonable opportunity to the applicant, the applicant, namely, Nazrul Islam @ Najrul Islam, was declared to be an illegal migrant from Bangladesh of post 25.03.1971 stream vide opinion dated 30.01.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th Nagaon, in N.F.T. (6th) Case No. 205/2015 [arising out of Reference IMDT Case No. 117/1999]. d. The applicant was thereafter, taken into custody on 01.06.2018. Therefore, through jail, the applicant had filed a review petition dated 18.06.2018, accompanied with a separate application for condonation of delay, which was registered as Misc. Case No. NFT (6th) 06/2018. Page No.# 5/9 e. The learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th, Nagaon, by order dated 14.09.2018, dismissed the said Misc. Case No. NFT (6th) 06/2018 as well as the application for setting aside the opinion dated 30.01.2018. 3) Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.09.2018, in Misc. Case No. NFT (6th) 06/2018, the applicant had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 3598/2019. This Court, in its order dated 17.06.2019, upon examining the materials on record, observed that on 10.06.2016, the applicant had filed his evidence-on-affidavit along with voters list of 1966 and 1971 and took time for further evidence. The matter was fixed on 12.07.2016, but the applicant remained absent on the said date and on 5 (five) dates thereafter between 18.08.2016 and 07.01.2017. Though the applicant was present on 23.02.2017, but he had remained absent without steps on 12.04.2017 and 31.05.2017. The next date was fixed on 21.07.2017, but the tenure of the learned Member had expired and therefore, another In-Charge Member maintained the proceeding, but the applicant was absent without steps on 21.07.2018 and also on 20.09.2017, 06.11.2017 and 30.11.2017. Thereafter, on 30.01.2018, the opinion was passed in the proceeding, declaring the applicant to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. Thus, in a span of two years, the applicant had remained absent and occasionally without steps on 18 (eighteen) occasions. As the time limit for completion of proceeding as stipulated by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is 60 days, it was held that interference with the impugned opinion would frustrate the purpose of enacting the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Page No.# 6/9 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the documents annexed to the connected un-numbered review petition, had submitted that the said order dated 17.06.2019, thereby dismissing W.P.(C) 3598/2019, was assailed by the applicant by filing S.L.P. (Civil) Dairy No. 54571/2025 on 20.09.2025, i.e. after 6 (six) years, 3 (three) months. On 06.10.2025, the Supreme Court of India had filed the following order:- “1. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 2. Since some of the documents now relied upon before us were seemingly not part of the record before the High Court, and as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court along with the documents now sought to be relied.” 5) At this stage, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border Matters, has submitted that on a perusal of the copy of the S.L.P.(C), annexed to the unnumbered review petition, he has noticed that the said petition for S.L.P.(C) contains an advocate’s certificate that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the High Court whose order is challenged and documents relied upon in those pleadings and that no additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border Matters has questioned that in light of such a certificate, how it was possible for the applicant to rely on additional documents, not produced by the applicant in connection with W.P.(C) 3598/2019. 6) Moreover, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has further submitted that in the connected unnumbered review petition, the index contains a description of documents annexed, which discloses as follows:- Page No.# 7/9 Particulars Description Page No. Review Petition 1- 16 Affidavit & certificate 17 – 19 Annexure-I Copy of writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 3598/2019] 20 – 92 Annexure-II Copy of the order dated 17.06.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3598/2019 93 – 98 Annexure-III Copy of the petition of the SLP. 99 – 113 Annexure-IV Copy of the order dated 06.10.2025, passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s.) 54571/2025 114 – 117 7) Accordingly, it has been submitted that as on this date, there is nothing on record to show as to which additional documents, hitherto not produced in the proceedings of W.P.(C) No. 3598/2019, have been annexed to the connected un-numbered review petition. Thus, it has been submitted that though the applicant had received liberty to produce documents sought to be relied upon before the Supreme Court of India, no such additional documents have been annexed to the said unnumbered review petition. 8) In connection with the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, as reflected hereinbefore, as the Court is in seisin of the delay condonation application, the Court is disinclined to make any comments on the issues raised by the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters at this stage. 9) In this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 2317 days in presenting the connected unnumbered review petition against the order dated 17.06.2019, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3598/2019. Except for stating that the applicant is illiterate and poor, no other explanation Page No.# 8/9 for the delay has been given. 10) Objecting to the prayer, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has submitted that the applicant has approached one of the very widely known and respected senior counsel to move his matter before the Supreme Court of India, which makes it highly unbelievable that the applicant is poor and could engage such a counsel with the help of villagers. However, before this Court, the applicant, in a calculated move, has approached a Legal Aid counsel just to draw uncalled for sympathy. In the said context, the Court would not express any comments. 11) Be that as it may, 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 reiterated certain guidelines. It has been laid down that no litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by Courts to misuse the process of law, further holding that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties, but they are meant to ensure that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. 12) In this case, apart from making a vague statement that the applicant is illiterate and poor, the applicant has not made any statement to give any good and cogent reason for filing a belated review petition after 2317 days, even if the delay from 06.10.2025, the date of order passed by the Supreme Court of India and 24.11.2025, the date of filing this application, i.e. 49 days is condoned. The applicant has not made any attempt to disclose material particulars as to when he came to know about documents that could not be produced when W.P.(C) 3598/2019 was filed and the applicant has also not Page No.# 9/9 disclosed why despite due diligence, any document could not be annexed to the said writ petition. 13) Thus, as the explanation for delay is vague and bereft of any good and cogent explanation, the Court is constrained to hold that the applicant has failed to make out any case for issuing notice on this application. 14) Resultantly, this application is dismissed without issuing notice upon the respondents. The consequences of the opinion dated 30.01.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th Nagaon, in N.F.T. (6th) Case No. 205/2015 [arising out of Reference IMDT Case No. 117/1999], shall follow. 15) It may be stated that although the learned Tribunal, in its order dated 14.09.2018, passed in Misc. Case No. NFT (6th)- 06/2018 has referred to in its opinion dated 30.01.2018 as “ex parte order dated 30.01.2018”, but as the petitioner has contested the proceeding by filing written statement and also filed his evidence-on-affidavit, but did not come forward to face cross- examination. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the said opinion dated 30.01.2018, cannot be said to be an “ex parte” opinion. 16) The learned standing counsel for the respondents shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the respondent authorities including the concerned learned Foreigners Tribunal for information and record. 17) The learned Legal Aid counsel shall be entitled to her usual fees/ honorarium. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant