Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010023882026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1034/2026 SUFIA BEGUM W/O SANA ULLAH D/O LT. MD. ASHRAF ALI, R/O VILL DAKSHIN HAIBARGAON, P.S. SADAR NAGAON, P.O. HAIBARGAON DISTRICT NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 1 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY OF HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON P.O AND DIST NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001 5:THE ASSAM STATE CO ORDINATOR OF NRC Page No.# 2/3 HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI -06 6:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELH Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, MS A HUSSAIN,SABRISH AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 20-05-2026 (S.K Medhi, J) Heard Ms. A Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 2, 3 & 5. 2. The instant application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 09/01/2026 of the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Nagaon, Assam in F.T Case (D) No. 540/12, whereby the prayer to accept certain documents has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is covered by an earlier judgment passed of this Court in the case of WP(C) No. 7412 of 2018 (Maleka Khatun -versus- Union of India & Others) disposed of 03/12/2018 and therefore the petition be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Ms. A. Verma, the learned Standing counsel has submitted that the reference is of the year 2012 and the impugned order would clearly reflect that the case was fixed for filing written argument and at this Page No.# 3/3 stage, the petition was filed. She has also submitted that no ratio, as such, has been laid down in the case of Maleka Khatun (supra) and therefore, the same cannot be treated as a binding precedent. 5. We have heard the learned counsels and have also carefully gone through the materials placed before us. 6. The reference was registered in the year 2012. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notices were received in the year 2023. Be that as it may, even assuming that the notices were received in the year 2023 about 3 years have passed and the impugned order is of 09/01/2026. It clearly reflects that the case was fixed for filing written argument and only at the last stage an application was filed to produce more documents. 7. We are also aware of the provisions of law namely, Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 which mandates completion of proceeding within a period of 60 days. 8. We are of the opinion that the present move by the petition is only a dilatory tactic to further delay the proceedings. 9. We accordingly, we do not find the present case to be a fit case for invoking the equitable writ jurisdiction and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant