Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010067382019 2026:GAU-AS:2252 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4479/2019 RAMJAN DEWAN S/O LATE ARFAN @ ARFAN DEWAN, RESIDENT OF VILL. GOMA, P.O. GOMAFULBARI, P.S. TARABARI, DIST. BARPETA, 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, INDIA, PIN- 110011. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA THROUGH THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRBACHAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI PIN- 110011. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-PIN- 781006. 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR ASSAM NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI PIN- 781005. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 PIN- 781301. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) BARPETA P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 09.02.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A.A.R. Karim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT and NRC, Mr. A. I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate and Ms. J. Sarma, learned CGC. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 03.08.2018 passed in F.T. Case No. 242/2016, corresponding to R/IM(D)T Case No.8173/98, by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.7, Barpeta, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. 3. In this case, notice of motion was not issued. However, vide order dated 28.08.2019, the Court proposed to examine the case records. Accordingly, the records of the case was called for from the learned Tribunal and the same is Page No.# 3/7 received. The matter was listed on 30.10.2019 but the matter was adjourned on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 02.02.2026, as no one represented the petitioner on the second call, the matter was adjourned. The matter has been listed in the motion column after more than 6 years, as such the matter has been taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner has sufficient documents to prove his lineage through with his grandfather, whose presence is available in the Land Revenue Records of the year 1958 for which reference is made to the Copy of Jamabandi which is annexed to this writ petition as Annexure-1(A) and 1(B) to project that the petitioner had inherited a plot of land from his father vide Mutation Order dated 22.02.1996 from his father namely, Late Arfan Dewan. It is submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner inherited the land from his father namely, Abdul Goni Dewan. It is submitted that due to ill advice from the learned counsel holding the brief of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, those land documents could not be exhibited. Accordingly, it is submitted that in view of the documents which were subsequently procured, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for remand of the matter to give the petitioner a fresh opportunity to adduce further evidence in the case. 5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, has submitted that the petitioner had merely exhibited four documents, out of which the petitioner relies on the Voter List of 1966 (Ext. A) and Voter List of 1970 (Ext. B), which discloses the name of grandfather, grandmother, etc. and the father of the petitioner. However, the name of the petitioner does not Page No.# 4/7 appear with the projected parents or grandparents and moreover, the date when the father of the petitioner had expired is also not been pleaded. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Voters List of 1997, where the name of the petitioner appears as D-Voter is not sufficient to prove the existence of the father and grandfather of the petitioner before 25.03.1971, or regarding the linkage of the petitioner with his father. 6. The records of the Tribunal reveal that the petitioner had filed his written statement before the learned Tribunal on 12.04.2017, wherein he had stated, amongst others, that he was born and brought up in village Goma, Mouza-Chenga, P.S. Tarabari, district-Barpeta, where he is residing. The name of his father is Arfan Dewan and the name of his mother is Rabia Khatun. His father had expired and his mother was alive and after the death of his father, when the petitioner was about 5-6 years old, his mother came back to live in her parental house in the same village. The petitioner had stated that the names of his grandparents namely, Goni Dewan and Moziron Nessa and the name of his father Arfan Dewan were recorded in the Voters list of 1966 and 1970 and the name of the mother of the petitioner namely, Rabia Khatun, was recorded in the Voter List of 1997. However, his own name was shown as ‘D- Voter’ in the Voter List of 1997. The petitioner has a certificate from the Gaon Burah as proof of residence. 7. In his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had reiterated the statements made in the written statement and in support of the statements the following documents were exhibited, viz., Certified Copy of Voter List in the year 1966 (Ext. A); Certified Copy of Voter List in the year 1970 (Ext. B); Gaonburah Page No.# 5/7 Certificate of vill-Goma (Ext. C). It may be stated that apart from exhibiting three documents, the petitioner had annexed copies of Voter List of 1997 as Annexure-I and II the evidence-on-affidavit. In his cross-examination, the petitioner had stated that the name of his mother is Rabia Khatun and the name of his grandfather is Goni Dewan. His father had died and his mother is alive. His name appears as ‘D-Voter’ in the Voters list of 1997. He also stated that his grandfather and father’s names appeared in the Voters list of 1966. It is stated that Kurpan Dewan, his uncle, had expired. 8. The petitioner had examined his projected mother, Rabia Khatun as DW-2. She has given her oral statement without exhibiting any document. However, the record reveals that on 01.08.2017, the petitioner had not pressed the evidence of DW-2, namely Rabia Khatun. Thereafter, the petitioner had examined one Nabjan Nessa @ Kabjan Nessa @ Nobabi Nessa, wife of Late Kurpan Dewan as DW-2 and apart from referring to the statement made in the evidence of DW-1/ petitioner, she had exhibited her own photo identity card as Ext. D. However, the records reveal that the DW-2 did not appear for her cross- examination and accordingly, by an order dated 20.06.2018, the evidence of DW-2 was closed. In this case, the petitioner has not exhibited any document to link with his projected father, whose name appeared in the Voters list of 1966 and 1970. 9. Thus, the evidence of DW-2 who did not come forward for cross- examination was not accepted. Thus, out of Ext. A, B and C, which remains for consideration, the Gaon Burah, who had issued the Certificate (Ext.C) was not examined. Thus, in so far as Ext. A and B are concerned, there is a disconnect Page No.# 6/7 between the petitioner and the names appearing in the said Voters List of 1966 (Ext. A) and 1970 (Ext. B). Accordingly, there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of record in the opinion dated 03.08.2018, passed by the learned Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned opinion reveals that the counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn. In this regard, the records reveal that after granting several adjournments, by an order dated 27.04.2018, a last opportunity to produce DW-2 for cross-examination was granted by the learned Tribunal. Another last chance was granted by an order dated 17.05.2018 and thereafter, by a speaking order dated 20.06.2018, the learned Tribunal allowed the counsel appearing for the petitioner to withdraw his vakalatnama from the case. 11. Accordingly, in view of the provision of Order 3(8) and Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, one final opportunity was granted to the petitioner by directing the petitioner to be present on the date fixed for final opinion. However, as the petitioner did not appear, an opinion in absentia was passed against the petitioner. 12. In so far, as the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal to enable him to prove the additional documents, it is seen that the petitioner had not produced any other documents which are annexed to this writ petition. 13. Accordingly in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction in view of the mandate Page No.# 7/7 laid down in the case of Central Council For Research In Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. v Bikartan Das & Ors., (2023) 0 Supreme SC 763, this Court is not entitled to substitute its view on the opinion passed by the learned Tribunal. There is no reason for the Court to presume that the petitioner was ill advised during the course of trial. There is nothing on record to show that the withdrawal of the learned counsel for the petitioner as recorded by order dated 20.06.2018 was not justified. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The consequences of the opinion dated 03.08.2018 shall follow. 14. The Registry shall send back the records to the concerned learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record. 15. The bail granted by order dated 28.08.2019 as an interim measure stands revoked. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant