Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010180682025 2026:GAU-AS:6656-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2678/2025 MD NOOR ISLAM @ MALAN ALI S/O BABULAL BAWRI @ BABULAL ALI @ MAFIJ ALI, VILL. GELUA MUSLIM GAON, P.O. KULAJAN, P.S. SILAPATHAR, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN 787110 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN 783370 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DHEMAJI ASSAM Page No.# 2/9 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MR S H MAHMUD,MR S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T Linked Case : CS/0/0 MD NOOR ISLAM ALIAS MALAN ALI S/O - BABULAL BAWRIA ALIAS BABULAL ALI ALIAS MAFIJ ALI VILL - GELUA MUSLIM GAON P.O - KULAJAN P.S. - SILAPATHAR DIST- DHEMAJI (ASSAM) PIN - 787110. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI. ------------ Advocate for : SAIFUL ISLAM Advocate for : appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 12.05.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Page No.# 3/9 learned Dy.SGI for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for FT, Border matters and NRC for respondent nos. 2 and 4; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3. 2) By an opinion dated 30.01.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 2nd, Dhemaji at Silapathar, in F.T.(D) Case No. 2nd Dhemaji -67/2016, the applicant was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. The applicant had unsuccessfully assailed the said opinion by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 2677/2017. This Court by order dated 16.05.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2677/2017, had dismissed the said writ petition. 3) By filing this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant, who has filed the accompanying unnumbered review petition, has prayed for condoning the delay of 2233 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the said review petition against the order dated 16.05.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2677/2017. 4) Issue notice returnable forthwith. As all sides are duly represented, with the consent of the learned counsel for all sides, the matter was heard. 5) The learned counsel for the applicant, by referring to the statements made in paragraph 2 of this application, has submitted that this Court by order dated 16.05.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2677/2017, had dismissed the said writ petition. It has been submitted that the learned counsel engaged by the applicant did not inform the applicant about the said order dated 16.05.2019, by which the writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed. It was submitted that the applicant was ill and had no other senior Page No.# 4/9 member in the family and therefore, he could not take appropriate steps to challenge the order dated 16.05.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2677/2017. It was submitted that about 3 (three) months’ prior to the filing of the accompanying review petition, some person informed the applicant that his writ petition was dismissed and he was declared to be a foreigner and thereafter, the applicant collected the certified copy of the order dated 16.05.2019, and took some time to collect other documents and ultimately, this review petition was filed on 29.07.2025. It was submitted that as there was a delay in filing of the review petition, the applicant then filed this petition on 12.08.2025. 6) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a poor person and therefore, he could not afford to pay Bar Council fees and hence, could not file any complaint against the counsel engaged to conduct W.P.(C) No. 2677/2017. It was submitted that the applicant has a good case on merit. 7) The learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the submission that the applicant should not suffer because of default on the part of the engaged counsel, has cited the case of Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 (para-8); and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 (para-11). 8) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC has submitted that the fact admitted by the applicant is that he did not care to meet his engaged counsel for roughly about 2100 days from 16.05.2019 and he came to know about it from another person. It was submitted that for reasons not disclosed in the writ petition, the applicant has withheld the name of his engaged counsel and the identity of the person who had allegedly informed the applicant about the dismissal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the facts under which the two cases of Rafiq (supra) and N. Page No.# 5/9 Balakrishnan (supra) were decided are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and therefore, the same would not help the applicant in this case. 9) The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate have submitted that they are formal parties and support the stand of the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC. 10) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the review petition and also seen the enclosures appended to the connected unnumbered review petition and also carefully considered the two cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. 11) In the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra), the suit was dismissed for default and an application for setting aside ex parte decree was filed after 883 days. The appellant before the Supreme Court of India had filed a consumer case against his engaged counsel before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and realized compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) from his engaged counsel. The learned Trial Court allowed the application for setting aside ex parte decree, but in the High Court, the learned Single Judge who had heard the revision, held that the delay was not properly explained. Under those facts, the Supreme Court of India had held that if the explanation does not smack of mala fides or is not put forth as a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. However, it was further observed that when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. 12) Similarly, in the case of Rafiq (supra), the appeal was dismissed Page No.# 6/9 on default of the engaged advocate. The application for restoring the appeal to file was rejected on the ground that the affidavit in support of the application was sworn on 29.10.1980, but was not presented till 12.11.1980. Thus, in that case also there was lapse on the part of two sets of advocates engaged by the appellant. 13) In this case in hand, there was no default on the part of the counsel engaged by the applicant in pursuing the writ petition. It is not the case of the applicant that from time to time he had enquired about the fate of his writ petition but despite dismissal of the writ petition, false and misleading information was always provided to the applicant, falsely assuring him that his writ petition was pending, and he was misled by his engaged counsel. 14) Thus, this is a clear case where the delay was caused by the applicant. In paragraph 2 of this application, the applicant has taken two stands. Firstly, it is projected that he was suffering from illness, but no prescriptions or medical reports have been produced to support his statement that he was suffering from illness. Secondly, his stand is that there is no senior member in his house for which he could not take appropriate steps to challenge the order. The said statement would only mean that he was aware of the order dated 16.05.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2677/2017, by which his writ petition was dismissed, but as no senior member was there in his home, he could not challenge the said order. Apparently, the said statement is a deliberately made false and fabricated statement to mislead the Court. It may be stated that as Annexure-5 to the accompanying review petition, the applicant has produced a photocopy of an affidavit sworn before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh, on 16.06.2025, where he has made a categorical statement that the applicant has one brother, namely, Rasid Ali @ Jaydul Hakiul and he has Page No.# 7/9 two sisters, namely, Nayan Begum and Junmoni Begum. As per the affidavit sworn by the applicant on 11.07.2025, filed in support of this interlocutory application, the age of the applicant is 57 years. Thus, in light of the discussions above, it cannot be accepted that the applicant had no adult member in his family. Thus, apparently a false, misleading and fabricated plea has been taken because it is not the projected case of the applicant that his brother and two sisters are of unsound mind or suffer from such other challenges or disabilities which render them incapable of enquiring about the status of his writ petition. 15) Therefore, the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of N. Balakrishnan (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the applicant to the effect that “… when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation”, is attracted and aptly applicable. 16) Admittedly, the advocate engaged by the applicant was not in default in pursuing the writ petition. The applicant having met and instructed his engaged counsel to file the writ petition, would definitely have his phone numbers and address. The applicant did not suffer any disability such that he could not even post a letter to enquire about the status of his writ petition. Dhemaji District, where the applicant stays is well connected by road and train with Guwahati, where his engaged advocate practices. The affidavit sworn on 16.06.2025, referred hereinbefore, is a proof of the fact that the applicant has adult family members, yet, they were not sent to enquire about the status of his writ petition. For reasons best known to the applicant, he has also not disclosed in this application whether he has any spouse or children. The applicant claims to be ill during the entire period of roughly about 2100 days out of 2233 days of Page No.# 8/9 delay, but he has withheld the name of the disease, medical prescription and laboratory reports, which leads to the presumption that he never took any medical treatment for his alleged so called illness during roughly 2100 days or roughly about 5 years 9 months. Thus, the plea of illness is also held to be not acceptable. 17) The most damning and unpardonable conduct of the applicant, in connection with this application, is making a false, misleading and fabricated statement before this Court, knowing it to be false that he has no “senior” member in the family, which is twisting of facts because there are adult members in his family. 18) Thus, when the applicant has resorted to falsehood before this Court, in the considered opinion of the Court, he becomes disentitled to any equitable relief. 19) Therefore, the instant application, which is built on the foundation of falsehood, is liable to be rejected. The delay in this case is held to be due to utter negligence on the part of the applicant to obtain information about the status of his writ petition. Moreover, to hide and cover up his own delay and laches, the applicant has made a false accusation against the counsel whom he had engaged for filing W.P.(C) No. 2677/2017. 20) Resultantly, this application is hereby dismissed. As a consequences, the unnumbered and unregistered review petition under filing number Review Pet. 9603/2025, is also dismissed. 21) The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters and NRC is requested to send a downloaded copy of this order to the concerned authorities in the Home and Political (B) Department as well as to the concerned Page No.# 9/9 Tribunal for record and future reference. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant