Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010088742026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2440/2026 FIMONI BEGUM ALIAS MUSSTT. FRIMONI BEGUM W/O- SULTAN ALI, D/O- LT. AKANMAN ALI, R/O-VILL-GOMARIGURI FOREST KRISHNASWAMI GAON, P.O. AND P.S- MERAPANI, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785705. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI--110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE ASSAM STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785621. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) Page No.# 2/4 GOLAGHAT DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MR. F A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 13.05.2026 (SK Medhi, J.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Golaghat, Assam in F.T.G.(D)/124/2007 whereby the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner of post 1971. 2. We have heard Shri S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned C.G.C. for the respondent no. 1; Ms. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, E.C.I. for the respondent no. 2; Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department for the respondent nos. 3 and 6; Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, N.R.C. for the respondent no. 4 whereas Ms. R.B. Bora, learned State Counsel, Assam accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no. 5. 3. Shri Ahmed, learned counsel has fairly submitted that there is no dispute regarding the aspect of receipt of notice. However, when the petitioner had visited the Tribunal, her thumb impression was taken in some registers and thereafter due to Page No.# 3/4 ignorance, she did not contest the proceeding leading to passing of the impugned order. It is also contended that the petitioner has hardships and on the recent visit of the police, she came to know about the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, Shri Payeng, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court after a lapse of 14 years would itself demonstrate that she is not at all serious about the matter. It is also submitted that the records would show that the notice was duly received by putting the thumb impression of the petitioner on the same. The learned Standing Counsel has also referred to the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, more particularly, Order 3 thereof which also deals with the aspect of service of notice. He has accordingly submitted that from the above facts, the petitioner would not be entitled to any equitable relief. 5. The order sheet of the learned Tribunal enclosed to the petition has been duly perused. Notice was issued on 18.03.2010 and as observed above, admittedly, the notice was duly served. On the next date fixed i.e. 26.04.2010, the petitioner was in fact present and in her presence, the next date was fixed 07.07.2010 for filing written statement. On the next date, the petitioner was absent without any steps and 16.08.2010 was fixed for written statement. Translated copies of the orders thereafter have not been enclosed. However, the orders in vernacular have been enclosed which would show that as many as ten dates were given and ultimately, vide the impugned order dated 15.06.2012, the impugned opinion was given declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner. 6. Under Section 9 of the Foreigners, Act, 1946, the burden is upon the proceedee to prove that she or he is not a foreigner. For ready reference, the aforesaid provision is extracted hereinbelow: Page No.# 4/4 “9. Burden of proof.—If in any case not falling under Section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), lie upon such person.” 7. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the aspect of service of notice. What is also more relevant is that the challenge has been made in this Court after a lapse of about 14 years and the explanations do not inspire any confidence. It is needless to reiterate that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable in nature wherein the conduct of the party approaching this Court is of paramount importance. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court is not above board and there is gross delay and laches which is inordinate and without any acceptable explanation. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant