Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010250272019 2026:GAU-AS:5461 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8171/2019 MUMTAZ BEGUM @ MUMTAZ D/O- TAIYAB ALI, W/O- MUJAMMEL HOQUE, VILL- DHING GAON, P.O- DAGAON, P.S- JURIA, DIST- NAGAON, PIN- 782124 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782002 4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI- 110001 5:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781005 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE JURIA POLICE STATION DIST- NAGAON PIN- 78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MRS H AHMED,MR F U BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 20.04.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, 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 06.06.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 4th, Nagaon, Juria, in F.T. Case No. 354/15, arising out of Police Ref. ‘D’ Case No. 2854/98, 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, there is no point in discussing the written statement and evidence in this order. 4. It would suffice to mention that initially, by an opinion dated 10.04.2017 passed in this case, the petitioner was declared not to be a Page No.# 3/5 foreigner. However, during investigation, it was found that there was no order in the record, and no witnesses were examined by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, pursuant to an order dated 22.06.2018, passed by this Court in a writ petition, (the writ petition number is not disclosed in the impugned opinion), a fresh trial was ordered. Resultantly, the present case was reviewed. 5. The Petitioner had filed her written statement and she examined herself as OPW-1 by filing evidence-on-affidavit on 02.04.2016. She has also examined her projected father, Md. Tayab Ali, as OPW-2 on 02.04.2016. 6. Thereafter, on 13.07.2016, the petitioner also examined one Akhtar Ali as OPW-3. Though the witnesses were present, as per order dated 24.08.2016, OPW-3 was examined by the learned Tribunal and the matter was fixed for argument. The evidence-on-affidavit of OPW-1, OPW-2, and OPW-3 is available at pages 27 to 35 of the Tribunal's records. 7. It is surprising to note that in the impugned opinion dated 06.06.2019, there is no reference to the evidence of OPW-2 and OPW-3 or the examination of OPW-3 by the learned Tribunal. Moreover, while the learned Tribunal had referred to 9 exhibited documents, the discussion was limited to Ext.1, Ext.2 and Ext.3. Without any discussion, Ext.4, Ext.5, and Ext.6 were discarded as no linkage was noticed. However, there is no discussion on Ext.7, Ext.8, and Ext.9. 8. Although the learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters has made her submission in support of the impugned opinion, considering the fact that there is no discussion on Ext.7, Ext.8 and Ext.9 and there is only one- line rejection of Exhibit Ext.4, Ext.5, and Ext.6, and no discussion on the evidence of OPW 2 and 3, and also no discussion on the evidence of OPW 1, save except the exhibited documents, the Court is of the considered opinion Page No.# 4/5 that the impugned opinion is vitiated for non-discussion of the evidence on record. Accordingly, the impugned opinion dated 06.06.2019 is hereby set aside on the following terms: i. The matter is remanded back for a fresh consideration before the said learned Tribunal to discuss the evidence of all the three OPWs and also consider the documentary exhibits and thereafter, pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law. ii. The petitioner, namely, Musstt. Mumtaz Begum @ Musstt. Mumtaz, who is duly represented by a learned counsel, is directed to appear before the said learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 4th, Nagaon, Juria on or before 30.05.2026 without fail and by producing a certified copy of the order, await further orders from the said learned Tribunal. iii. In the event the petitioner does not appear on the dates fixed, it would be permissible for the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass appropriate orders in terms of directions given in this order. 9. The Registry shall send back Tribunal's records expeditiously along with the copy of the order to be made a part of the record. 10. The learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters is requested to send a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Political (B) Department, Govt. of Assam to enabled them to take a decision as to whether the State would requires the Members of the Foreigners Tribunals as well as the staff of the learned Tribunal to be periodically trained to upgrade their skills. 11. The writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. Page No.# 5/5 12. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant