Page No.# 1/26 GAHC010056302026 2026:GAU-AS:7627-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./60/2026 MD. MANNAS ALI S/O LATE LAL MAMUD, R/O VILL- AMRAKANDA, P.S.- RUPOHIHAT, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI PIN-11000 Page No.# 2/26 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P C DEY, MR BASAB DEY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM Linked Case : WP(C)/7195/2025 MD MANNAS ALI S/O- LATE LAL MAMUD R/O- VILLAGE- AMRAKANDA P.S.- RUPOHIHAT DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF HOME NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESNETED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI PIN- 110001 ------------ Advocate for : MR P C DEY Advocate for : GA Page No.# 3/26 ASSAM appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN JUDGMENT & ORDER Date: 02.06.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing counsel for FT and Border matters, for respondent no. 2 and 3; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.4; and Ms. M. Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.5. 2) In view of the issue involve in this review petition, as notice has been issued vide order dated 07.04.2026, the matter has been heard. 3) The petitioner was a proceedee in Case No. NFT. (No.3) 784/16(D) [corresponding to D/Case No. 995/98], which was a reference made before the Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, Assam. Despite notice being duly served in accordance with the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and on failure of the petitioner to contest the proceeding and prove his Indian citizenship, the reference was answered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal in favour of the State and against the petitioner, vide ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, thereby declaring him to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, Page No.# 4/26 1946. 4) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely, Md. Mannas Ali, had assailed the said ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, in Case No. NFT. (No.3) 784/16(D) [corresponding to D/Case No. 995/98]. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 7195/2025. This Court, by order dated 16.12.2025, had dismissed the said writ petition. 5) The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India and the said Hon’ble Court, by order dated 27.02.2026, in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7428/2026, had passed the following order, which is quoted below:- “1. The petitioner was declared a foreigner through an ex-parte The order by the Foreigners Tribunal vide order dated 10.05.2018. ex-parte order was passed because the petitioner statedly did not petitioner chose to case was fixed The appear nor file the written statement when the before the Tribunal on 07.04.2018, 18.04.2018, and 24.04.2018. challenge the same before the High Court through a writ petition filed in the year 2025. The High Court has dismissed the same vide the impugned judgment on the ground of Signame plained and enormous delay of approximately 7 years, 6 months, and 24 days. 2. A categorical stand is being us taken before that the petitioner was never served proper notice by the Tribunal and, as he had no a uch, opportunity to challenge the same within Seasonable time. That being so, it seems to us that the petitioner should raise such a factual issue before the High Court in a review petition. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a review application before the High Court along with necessary documents. If such a petition is filed within two weeks, we request the High Court to not reject the same on the issue of delay or maintainability. 4. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand closed.” 6) It is noted as follows:- Page No.# 5/26 a. In the paragraph-2 of the order dated 27.02.2026, passed by the Supreme Court of India, it has been recorded that the categorical stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the “petitioner was never served proper notice by the Tribunal”. b. However, on the contrary, from the contents of the order dated 16.12.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7195/2025, it is noted that this Court had recorded that notice issued by the Foreigners Tribunal was served on the petitioner on 17.03.2018. c. Moreover, in paragraphs 2(D) and 2(E) of this review petition, the petitioner has admitted that notice issued by the learned Tribunal was served on the petitioner. 7) Accordingly, in response to the query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted as follows:- a. It was categorically submitted that it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was not served with the notice issued by the Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, to appear and contest the proceeding of Case No. NFT. (No.3) 784/16(D) [corresponding to D/Case No. 995/98]. b. It was submitted that the case of the petitioner is that he was served with the notice. However, in this review petition it is the case of the petitioner that the said notice was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 3(4) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner had cited paragraph 103 of the case of State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal, 2013 (1) GLT 809. Page No.# 6/26 c. It has been submitted that in paragraph 2(D) of this review petition, it has been stated that the notice of the proceeding was required to be submitted in English as well as in the official language of the State, but in this case, the petitioner was served notice only in the official language, i.e. Assamese, but not in English. Accordingly, it has been submitted that there was a violation of the manner in which notice is required to be served and therefore, the said notice cannot be treated as proper and valid notice to the petitioner. It was also submitted that as notice was not served in English but only in Assamese, the petitioner did not get a fair chance to contest the proceeding. d. It was also submitted that the notice should have contained a fair warning to the petitioner that the burden was cast on him to prove that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. Thus, the absence of such statement in the notice, though the petitioner had received it, cannot be said that the notice was properly served to the petitioner. e. It was submitted that in the writ petition, it was stated that though the notice of the proceeding was served on 17.03.2018, but the petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2018, in connection with Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 187/2018, and was in custody till third week of June, 2018 and therefore, he could not appear and take steps before the learned Foreigners Tribunal on 07.04.2018, 18.04.2018, 24.04.2018 and 10.05.2018. Therefore, he could not appear on those dates before the learned Tribunal. f. It was submitted that the petitioner had appointed a learned counsel to take steps in the case and gave her all the relevant documents and his counsel had informed that the proceeding had been Page No.# 7/26 halted due to Covid-19 Pandemic and she would communicate whenever the proceeding is resumed. But he was not informed about the proceeding either by his engaged counsel, or by the learned Tribunal, or by the Border Police. However, when the police started to take steps against the declared illegal migrants since 16.06.2025, the police visited his residence and he came to know about the ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018. g. Then, his learned advocate had informed him that he should assail the said ex parte opinion and accordingly, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) 7195/2025. h. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner deserves an opportunity to contest the proceeding by filing his written statement. i. No other submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8) It may be stated herein that in this order, the Court has withheld the name of the learned counsel, who was purportedly engaged by the petitioner before the Foreigner’s Tribunal as the said learned counsel was not a party in the writ petition and had not opportunity to contest allegation made against the said learned counsel. 9) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has submitted that the petitioner had admitted the receipt of notice of the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal in the writ petition as well as in this review petition. Thus, there is an admission on the part of the petitioner that the service of notice was duly effected on the petitioner in accordance with law. Page No.# 8/26 10) It has been submitted that there is no statement either in the writ petition or in this review petition that the petitioner knows only English and cannot read and understand Assamese. It has been further submitted that there is no pleading either in the writ petition or in the review petition that the petitioner had suffered any prejudice only because the notice of the proceeding was not bilingual and issued in the State language, i.e. Assamese as well as in English. 11) It was submitted that it has been pleaded by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the review petition that at the time of his arrest in connection with Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 187/2018, he was serving as a Grade-IV employee in a school. Hence, it was submitted that as the petitioner was then a Government servant, he cannot be permitted to take a plea that he cannot read the learned Tribunal’s notice served on him in Assamese, which is the official language of the State and therefore, he had suffered prejudice as he could not understand its contents. 12) Thus, it has been submitted that the notice was valid, duly informing the petitioner that he has to prove that he is a citizen and not a foreigner, which is in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, he prays that the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 13) Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for all the parties and perused the writ petition and the instant review petition. Also considered the order dated 27.02.2026, passed by the Supreme Court of India in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7428/2026. 14) The petitioner, in the writ petition, had specifically stated in Page No.# 9/26 paragraph 14 of the writ petition that a reference was made against him, suspecting him to be a foreigner. He had also stated that notice was issued to him in Case No. NFT. (No.3) 784/16(D). It was also stated that as per the order- sheet of the case, the order for issuance of notice was passed on 12.03.2018 and the next date for return of notice was fixed on 07.04.2018. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, he had stated to the effect that though the notice was served on him on 17.03.2018, but he could not appear before the learned Tribunal because he was in jail hazot (i.e. judicial custody). It was also stated that in the order dated 07.04.2018, the learned Tribunal had recorded that notice was returned after service and the petitioner was absent without steps. 15) In paragraph 2(D) of this review petition the petitioner has admitted in that notice of the case was served to him on 17.03.2018. 16) It may be stated that in paragraph 2 of the order dated 27.02.2026, the Supreme Court of India had observed as follows:- “A categorical stand is being taken before us that the petitioner was never served proper notice by the Tribunal and, as such, he had no opportunity to challenge the same within a reasonable time.” 17) Therefore, in order to ascertain what was actually pleaded before the Supreme Court of India, the Court desired to peruse the petition for Special Leave to Appeal, but the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he was not provided with the same. 18) Be that as it may, a copy of the learned Tribunal’s notice issued on 12.03.2018, served upon the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-1 to the review petition. As per a rough English translation of the said notice, it is seen that the same contains three important and relevant pieces of information. Firstly, the notice discloses that the petitioner had been accused of residing in Page No.# 10/26 the address after illegally entering into India from East Pakistan between 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971. Secondly, the petitioner was also accused of residing in the address after illegally entering into India from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. Thirdly, the petitioner was specifically informed that if he wants to prove the above allegations as untrue and that he was an Indian citizen, then he was directed to appear in person or through an Advocate on 07.04.2018, before the Tribunal and to submit his written statement. 19) Thus, in light of what has been discussed in the foregoing paragraph 17 above, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the notice it was not mentioned that the burden was on the petitioner to prove that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. The provision of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, casts the burden on the petitioner to prove that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India. 20) In this regard, if one needs any authority on the point as to why the burden of proof is cast on the proceedee, one may refer to paragraph 26 of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 665, may be referred to. 21) Thus, in this review petition, the petitioner has raised a new plea for the first time that in serving notice, the provision of Order 3(4) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 was not complied with. The said provision is extracted below:- 3(4) The notice shall be served in English and also in the official language of the State indicating that the burden is on the proceedee to prove that he or she is not a foreigner. 22) The petitioner had not pleaded in the writ petition that he had Page No.# 11/26 suffered any prejudice whatsoever because notice of the proceeding that was issued by the learned Tribunal on 12.03.2018 and served to the petitioner on 17.03.2018, was not served on him in English. 23) Thus, the only point of determination that is required to be answered in this review petition is – Whether in this case, non-service of notice to the petitioner in English, despite the notice in Assamese, official language of the State of Assam, has caused any prejudice to the petitioner and/or otherwise fatal for the State? 24) In light of the prescription of Order 3(4) that the notice shall be served in English and also in the official language of the State, the matter has been examined. The first factor to be considered is that the admitted case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that at the time when notice of the proceeding was served on him and he was arrested in a criminal case, he was working as a Grade-IV employee in a school. The said school appears to be a Govt. School because as per statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 18 of the writ petition, on being arrested, he was suspended and thereafter, he was reinstated in service by order dated 11.03.2019, passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon. A DEEO will be passing orders for reinstatement only if the concerned school was a Govt. School. Thus, at the relevant time, as the petitioner was a Grade-IV employee of a Govt. school, it can be presumed that the petitioner would be able to read Assamese, the Official language of the State of Assam for the District of Nagaon. Moreover, the notice of the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunals in the State of Assam is served through the Border Police. Therefore, it would be very difficult to presume that the petitioner, who was served the notice by Border Police Branch, would not be aware that he has been called upon by the Foreigners Tribunal to answer the charge that he is a foreigner. Page No.# 12/26 25) It may be mentioned that the Full Bench of this Court, noticing the absence of any uniform procedure laid down procedure, had issued certain directions in paragraph 102 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant paragraph 102 is quoted below. “102. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that, in the absence of any uniform laid down procedure, the following procedure is henceforth required to be adopted, in the matter of service of notice by the Tribunals on the proceedee. The procedure laid down herein below shall be applicable to all the proceedings pending before the Tribunal where the notices are either yet to be issued or issued but not yet served: i. The proceedee shall be served with the notice, together with the main grounds on which he is suspected to be a foreigner, as far as practicable, personally, whose signature/thumb impression, as proof of service, is to be obtained. ii. Such notice shall be issued in the address where the proceedee last resided or reportedly resides or works for gain. In case of change of place of residence, which has been duly intimated in writing to the investigating agency by the proceedee, the Tribunal shall issue notice in such changed address. iii. The notice shall be issued by the Tribunal in the official language of the State also indicating that the burden is on the proceedee to prove that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner. iv. The service of notice on any adult member of the family of the proceedee, in case he is found to be not present at the time of service, shall constitute the service on the proceedee. In token of such service the name and signature/thumb impression of such adult member shall be obtained. In case such adult member refuses to put the signature or thumb impression, a report in that regard shall be submitted. v. If the proceedee or any available adult member of his family refuses to accept the notice, the process server has to give a report in that regard along with the name and address of a person of the locality, who was present at the time of making such an effort to get the notices served, provided such person is available and willing to be a witness to such service. The signature/thumb impression of such witness, if present and willing, must be obtained. vi. In case the proceedee has changed the place of residence or place of work, without intimation to the investigating agency, a report in that regard shall be Page No.# 13/26 submitted by the process server. A copy of the notice shall then be affixed in a conspicuous place where the proceedee last resided or reportedly resided or worked for gain, containing the name and address of a respectable person of the locality, if available and willing to be a witness for that purpose. The signature/thumb impression of such person, in that case, shall also be obtained in the said report. vii. Where the proceedee or any adult member of his family are not found in the residence, a copy of the notice shall be pasted in a conspicuous place of his residence, witnessed by 1(one) respectable person of the locality, subject to his availability and willingness to be a witness in that regard. In that case the signature or thumb impression of that person shall also be obtained in proof of the manner in which such service is effected. viii. Where the proceedee resides outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the notice has to be sent for service to the officer-in-charge of the police station within whose jurisdiction the proceedee resides or last resided or last known to have been resided or works for gain. The process server shall then cause the service of notice in the manner as provided herein above. ix. In case no person is available or willing to be the witness of service of notice, as mentioned above, or refused to put his signature or thumb impression, a signed certificate/verification is to be filed by the process server to that effect, which shall be sufficient proof of such non-availability, unwillingness and refusal. Questions (f): Whether an application filed by a foreigner under sub-section (3) of Section 6A of the 1955 Act read with Rule 19 of the 2009 Rules, can be entertained beyond the time limit prescribed by Rule 19 of the said Rules for registration? If so, the ground(s) on which such delayed application can be entertained? AND Questions (g): Whether a person, who has been detected to be a foreigner within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 6A of the 1955 Act, is liable to be deported from India if he does not register his name as required under the provisions of 1955 Act and 2009 Rules?” 26) Therefore, from sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 102 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), in the absence of a uniform procedure, the Full Bench of this Court, had directed that the notice shall be issued by the Tribunal Page No.# 14/26 in the official language of the State, also indicating that the burden is on the proceedee to prove that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the notice of the proceeding, as served on the petitioner, was not in strict compliance with the direction contained in paragraph 102(iii) quoted hereinbefore. 27) It will be an unacceptable legal proposition that unless the notice of the Foreigners Tribunal is served in bilingual mode, i.e. English and official language of the State, which in this case is Assamese, a proceedee, in spite of receipt of notice need not appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal to contest the proceeding. The non-service of notice in English, could, at best, be a ground for the petitioner to pray for an adjournment before the learned Tribunal by showing cause for not being able to file his written statement and pray that notice to him be served in English. 28) Thus, this is a fit case where the Court must resort to a purposeful reading of the provisions of Order 3(4) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 29) The notice served on the petitioner is found to be in compliance with the directions contained in paragraph 102(iii) of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra). The Full Bench of this Court having directed that the notice should be served in Official language of the State. Therefore, this Bench, being bound by the decision of the Full Bench, cannot return a finding contrary to the Full Bench decision by holding that the learned Foreigners Tribunal’s notice, having been served in official language in accordance with the directions contained in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 102 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), has vitiated the ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018. 30) Therefore, in connection with the issue relating to issuance and Page No.# 15/26 service of notice, the Court is inclined to hold that there has to be a purposeful reading of the provisions of Order 3(4) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and has to be harmoniously read with the directions contained in sub- paragraph (iii) of paragraph 102 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra). 31) Moreover, actus curiae neminem gravabit, meaning thereby that the act of Court shall not harm anyone, is a well settled principle of law that has to be invoked in this case. In the said context, suppose in a given case, the notice of the Court or summons issued by a Court contains some typographical error, which is otherwise inconsequential to the context of informing the persons summoned why he has been so summoned, it cannot be held that the decree or judgment or order passed by the concerned Court would be a nullity. 32) There is another reason for purposefully reading the provision of Order 3(4) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, harmoniously with the directions contained in paragraph 102(iii) of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra). In the considered opinion of the Court, the principles that can be applied in interpretation of the said provision of Order 3(4) are as follows: a. ex visceribus actus, meaning “construction of the Act as a whole”; and b. ut res magis valeat quam pereat, meaning “it is better to validate a thing than invalidate it”. The Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, by referring to the hereinbefore referred two legal maxims of construction of statute, had held in the case of Executive Engineer & Anr. v. M/s. Sri Seetaram Rice Mills, (2012) 2 SCC 108, that a construction which will improve the workability of the statute, to be more effective and more purposive, should be preferred to any other Page No.# 16/26 interpretation which may lead to undesirable results. 33) In the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), the issue of influx of people from specified territory has been equated with external aggression. Therefore, in the present case, if a restrictive meaning is given to the provision of Order 3(4) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, then though in this case the petitioner has been served with a notice, and though it cannot be said that he is not conversant in official language of the State, by not contesting the proceeding, he would be able to get the otherwise lawful opinion of the learned Foreigners Tribunal annulled only because of some error in the notice or for non-service of notice in English, which is not fatal in any way. 34) In this case, the petitioner was served with a notice. He has not made any effort to show why on his behalf, no steps were taken before the learned Foreigners Tribunal at least to make a prayer before the said learned Tribunal that he was in jail and would require time till he is released on bail to contest the proceeding. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the petitioner has not taken a plea in the writ petition, W.P.(C) 7195/2025, that he had suffered prejudice because he did not know Assamese, the official language of the State, in which language notice was served on him. The point that he was not served with notice in English has been raised for the first time in this Review Petition. 35) The petitioner was released on bail, but the petitioner has not disclosed the date when he was released on bail, but he has stated that he was in custody till third week of June, 2018. Be that as it may, the petitioner has stated that he was reinstated in service by order dated 11.03.2019, passed by the DEEO. Thus, on and from his release on bail in third week of June, 2018, the petitioner did not suffer from any legal disability to appear before the Page No.# 17/26 Foreigners Tribunal and to file a review petition, or to assail the opinion before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 36) The specific plea of the petitioner in this review petition is that the petitioner had appointed a learned counsel to take steps in the case and gave the said learned counsel all the relevant documents. The petitioner has not disclosed the date when he had engaged a counsel. It has not been pleaded that he had given the learned counsel his vakalatnama or that he had filed any petition before the learned Foreigners Tribunal to recall the ex parte opinion. Therefore, when no application was filed before the Foreigners Tribunal and after the ex parte opinion had already been passed on 10.05.2018, it cannot be believed that the counsel for the petitioner had informed the petitioner that the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal and/or before any other Court including this High Court was hitherto continuing, but had been halted due to Covid-19 Pandemic. It is not the case of the petitioner that from the third week of June, 2018 till 04.12.2025, when the W.P.(C) 7195/2025 was filed, Covid-19 Pandemic was continuing. Thus, the petitioner had admitted that only when the police had started to take steps against the declared illegal migrants since 16.06.2025, he came to know about the ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018. 37) After the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner has now taken a new plea in this review petition that proper notice was not served. In the said context, the Court has already referred hereinbefore to the three pieces of information that were given in the notice issued by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, which was in Assamese, the official language of Assam, and duly served on the petitioner on 17.03.2018. 38) The pertinent fact which has not been highlighted by the petitioner is that in paragraph 2 of the said ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018, Page No.# 18/26 it has been recorded that during the course of verification of voters list of 1997, the petitioner could not produce any document regarding his Indian citizenship and therefore, doubting his citizenship, the LVO (i.e. Local Verification Officer) had submitted a report. 39) In the context of the foregoing paragraph, it may be mentioned that the Election Commission of India had ordered revision of the draft electoral roll which was published on 24.07.1997, with reference to the qualifying date of 01.01.1997. Accordingly, house-to-house enumeration was conducted between 16.01.1997 to 15.04.1997. In this case, the petitioner is a voter in 85 No. Rupahihat LAC. The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO for brevity) of 85 No. Rupahihat LAC had doubted the citizenship of the petitioner and ordered an enquiry by the LVO. The petitioner could not produce any document of his citizenship before the LVO. Thus, on receipt of the LVO Report in Form-A, the ERO had submitted his report in Form-B to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, who is the statutory authority to make a formal reference before the jurisdictional Foreigners Tribunal. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, vide his D-Case No. 995/98, of 85 No. Rupahihat LAC, referred the matter to the Tribunal for determination as to whether or not the petitioner was a foreigner. It may be mentioned that this exercise has not been initiated under the Foreigners Act, 1946, but is an exercise under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. As per the Election Manual, the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal [IM(D)T for brevity], and after the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 was declared ultra vires the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), all references pending before IM(D)Ts were either transferred to the Foreigners Tribunals or references were made by the Page No.# 19/26 jurisdictional Superintendent of Police before the Foreigners Tribunal. Under the current Election Manual, the determinations are required to be done by the Foreigners Tribunals. Hence, it can be presumed that in the year 1997 itself the petitioner was aware of the enquiry that was made by the LVO on the doubt expressed by ERO about his Indian citizenship. 40) These issues were exhaustively dealt with by this Court in the case of Shukurjan Nessa @ Sukurjan v Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 245/2019, decided on 28.02.2025, where the said aspect of the matter has been clarified. The relevant part of the said order are extracted hereinbelow:- 14. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference was blank and not properly filled up and therefore, the grounds of suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner has not been furnished to her is taken up first. 15. In this case, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, on receipt of communication dated 16.03.1998, issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, 44 No. Jania L.A.C., which is accompanied with a three page Local Verification Report (Annexure-A) by one Sri Khagen Kalita, J.E. In the said LVO Report dated 17.10.1997, it has been mentioned at two places to the effect that no documents produced during field verification. 16. Therefore, this is not a case where any enquiry was made under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 or Rules framed thereunder, where investigation is done under the authority of the Superintendent of Police (Border). The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police (Border) is the prescribed authority to make reference before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal constituted under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and Rules framed thereunder. 17. There is an important facet, which is contained in the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin (supra), which must be referred to. We are in respectful agreement with the said judgment and therefore, paragraphs 11 to 22 thereof are quoted below:- 11. In the year 1997, Election Commission of India had undertaken an intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam as apprehensions were expressed from various quarters that the electoral rolls were infested with the names of foreigners/illegal migrants. In the course of this exercise citizenship status of as many as 3,13,046 persons whose names were in the Page No.# 20/26 draft voters lists were found to be doubtful and accordingly they were marked as doubtful “D” voters in the electoral rolls after local verification. 12. Legality of this exercise was challenged before this Court in HRA Choudhury Vs Election Commission of India, reported in 2002 (1) GLT 1. The challenge made was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. In HRA Choudhury (supra) this Court examined the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 of the Election Commission of India laying down the procedure to carry out the exercise. 12.1. As per paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines the Electoral Registration Officer was required to consider the verification report received from the Local Verification Officer. If he was satisfied on such report and such other material/information as may be available about the eligibility of a person, he should allow his name to continue on the electoral roll. Where, however, he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, he was required to refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 as the case may be. For convenience of the Electoral Registration Officers, Election Commission devised proformas. 12.2. As per paragraph 3.9, after the case of a person was referred by the Electoral Registration Officer to the competent authority, he should wait for the decision of the relevant Tribunal in relation to that person and act according to such decision. 12.3. As per paragraph 3.10, where the relevant Tribunal decided that any such person was not a citizen of India, Electoral Registration Officer should proceed under Rule 21 A of the Registration of Electors Rolls, 1960 to have the name of such person deleted from the electoral roll before it was finally published. 12.4. This Court in HRA Choudhury (supra) held that such guidelines and decision of the Election Commission were in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution of India besides conforming to the principles of natural justice. It was held that such guidelines cannot be held to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or partiality. 13. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 is no longer in existence, the same having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665. Therefore, in so far paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 is concerned, the reference Page No.# 21/26 would be under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 14. The above exercise was repeated in the year 2005 with the Election Commission of India again going for intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam taking 01.01.2005 as the qualifying date. In this connection, guidelines dated 17.06.2004 were issued by the Election Commission of India. Paragraph 2.2 of the guidelines dealt with “D” voters. It was mentioned that the guidelines issued in 1997 would be followed while dealing with such category of persons. Paragraph 8 dealt with verification by Electoral Registration Officers. It laid down the procedure while carrying out such verification including verification by Local Verification Officer. As per paragraph 8.6, Local Verification Officer would conduct the verification by making an on the spot visit and the person concerned could adduce any one or more of the documents mentioned therein in support of his claim as a citizen of India. After due verification, the Local Verification Officer was required to submit his report in the prescribed format. Under paragraph 8.8, Electoral Registration Officer on receipt of the verification report from the Local Verification Officer should consider the same. Where he was satisfied about the eligibility of a person, he should allow the name of such person to continue on the electoral roll but where he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person he should refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 in a prepared format (Annexure-B to the guidelines dated 17.06.2004) to the competent authority for making reference to the Tribunal and await the decision of such Tribunal. 15. As pointed out by Mr. Barua, in Mameja Khatun (supra) a Single Bench of this Court directed that “D” voters should not be allowed to cast their votes with the clarification that “D” voters would include persons whose names were included in the electoral rolls but their citizenship was doubted or disputed and also those whose cases were pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. This decision of the learned Single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 114/2011 (State Vs Mameja Khatun). By the judgment and order dated 13.10.2015, the Division Bench directed Election Commission of India and other authorities to implement the directions of the Single Bench in letter and spirit. 16. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that in WP(C) No. 274/2009 filed by Assam Public Works which is pending before the Supreme Court of India wherein NRC updation exercise in the State of Assam is being monitored by the Supreme Court of India, on 25.10.2013, Supreme Court clarified that as far as persons in the “D” list are concerned, undoubtedly Page No.# 22/26 they were doubtful voters and therefore their names could not be included unless the NRC is updated and unless the Foreigners Tribunals declared them to be Indian citizens. 17. The Foreigners Act, 1946 is an act to confer upon the Central Government certain powers in respect of foreigners. This Act provides for the exercise of certain powers by the Central Government in respect of the entry of foreigners into India; their presence in India and their departure therefrom. Section 2 (a) defines a “foreigner” to mean a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 3 confers power to the Central Government to make orders making provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or their continued presence therein. 17.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Central Government made the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. As per order 2 (1), the Central Government may by order refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to a Tribunal to be constituted for the purpose for its opinion. 18. Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India had issued notification dated 19.04.1958 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-(1) of Article 258 of the Constitution of India whereby the President with the consent of the State Government concerned entrusted to the Governments of each of the States mentioned therein including the State of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Another notification dated 17.02.1976 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 258 (1) of the Constitution entrusting the Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) under the Government of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 within their respective jurisdictions subject to the conditions mentioned therein which included the condition that exercise of such functions would be in respect of nationals of Bangladesh and that while exercising such functions, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) shall comply with such general or special directions as the Government of Assam or the Central Government may issue from time to time. 19. Article 258 of the Constitution deals with power of the Union to confer Page No.# 23/26 powers etc on States in certain cases. Clause (1) of Article 258 starts with a non-obstante clause. It says that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. Clause (3) provides for making of payment by the Government of India to the State concerned such sum as may be agreed upon or in default of agreement through arbitration in respect of any extra- cost of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of powers and duties of the Government of India conferred or imposed upon a State Government. 20. Thus, under the Central Government notifications dated 19.04.1958 and 17.02.1976, Government of Assam, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) have been delegated the power to make reference to the Foreigners Tribunal under order 2 (1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to seek opinion as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 21. Thus from the above, what transpires is that there are two categories of “D” voters:- (i). those who were marked as “D” voters in the electoral roll by the Electoral Registration Officer following enquiry by Local Verification Officer; and (ii). those whose references are pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. 22. In so far Electoral Registration Officer is concerned the exercise undertaken by him while marking a person as a “D” voter in the electoral roll is a quasi judicial exercise. If he holds the view after examining the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer that the concerned person is not a citizen of India he is required to forward the case of that person to the competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police. If it is so forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police has to make a reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunals under order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 based on the report received from the Electoral Registration Officer. Question of making further enquiry by the Superintendent of Police in such a case would not arise because enquiry has already been made by the Electoral Registration Officer by exercising quasi judicial powers and the Superintendent of Police cannot sit over such decision of the Electoral Registration Officer. He has to forward the same by making the reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunal for its opinion. 17. The said judgment by the learned Single Judge has stood affirmed by the virtue of judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019. Page No.# 24/26 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the case of Moslem Mondal (supra) and Amina Khatun (supra) to support his contention that if LVO report is blank, the reference is vitiated. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that as per the contents of para-10 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, suspecting the respondent therein as illegal migrant within the meaning of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, made a reference under Section 8 (1) of the said Act read with Rule 9 (A) of the Rules framed thereunder and accordingly, Case No. 1311/2003 was registered before the IM(D)T, Barpeta and the said proceeding was subsequently transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal and registered as F.T. Case No. 243/2006. Therefore, in the said case, reference was not made by Electoral Registration Officer (EVO for short). Hence, the decision of Moslem Mondal (supra), being distinguishable on facts, is not found to help the petitioner in any manner. 19. However, in the case of Amina Khatun (supra), which was decided on 28.04.2022, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), based on LVO by the ERO. But when the said writ petition was being heard and decided by a Coordinate Bench, it appears that the previous decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 456, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019, decided on 29.07.2019, were not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that under the well settled principles of stare decisis, the decision in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) would be per incurium. Accordingly, the decision rendered in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) will also not be of any help to the petitioner. 20. In the present case, the proceedings which were hitherto pending before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals were transferred by the Supreme Court of India to the Foreigners Tribunal vide directions issued in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). The said fact has been stated in para-1 of the impugned opinion. Hence, this Court would refrain from making any observations on the LVO Report in this case because the Foreigners Tribunals would have no power or jurisdiction to remand the reference back to the Superintendent of Police (Border) for a fresh enquiry by the LVO/ERO. 21. Therefore, the challenge to the proceeding before the learned Foreigners Tribunal on the ground that certain paragraphs and/or columns of the Local Verification Officer’s (LVO) Report, as forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) were left blank, is held to be not maintainable on facts and in law morefully referred to hereinbefore. The point of determination no. (i) is answered accordingly.” Page No.# 25/26 41) Be that as it may, in this case, the ex parte opinion was rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal on 10.05.2018. The petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 7195/2023 on 04.12.2025. Thus, the petitioner had assailed the said ex parte opinion after a delay of about 7 years, 6 months, 24 days or 2765 days, which is not properly explained. 42) Hence, in light of the discussions above, the point of determination in this case is answered by holding that as the learned Tribunal had caused service of notice issued on 12.03.2018, which was in Assamese, the official language of the State, and therefore, in this case, non-service of notice to the petitioner in English is not found to have caused any prejudice whatsoever to the petitioner and therefore, as the notice is in accordance with the directions contained in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 102 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), therefore, the service of notice in Assamese only is not found fatal for the State and is also not found to vitiate the opinion dated 10.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, in Case No. NFT. (No.3) 784/16(D) [corresponding to D/Case No. 995/98]. 43) Thus, no case is made out by the petitioner to either interfere with the ex parte opinion dated 10.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 3rd, Nagaon, in Case No. NFT. (No.3) 784/16(D) [corresponding to D/Case No. 995/98], or to review the order dated 16.12.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7195/2025, by which the said writ petition challenging the opinion dated 10.05.2018 was dismissed. 44) Before parting with the records, it must be stated that in the order dated 16.12.2025, an inadvertent typographical error had crept in. The said error has been noticed only while passing this order. Accordingly, to set the Page No.# 26/26 records correct, the said typographical error is required to be corrected, which is set out below:- Para and Line No. Error in order To be read as. Para- 5, Line- 4. 20.03.218 20/03/18 45) Therefore, it is clarified that the date of “20.03.218”, appearing in line no. 4 of paragraph 5 of the order dated 16.12.2025, is required to be read as 20.03.2018. 46) It is also clarified that though no case for review has been made out on merit, but in respectful deference to the order dated 27.02.2026, passed by the Supreme Court of India in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7428/2026, the issues raised by the petitioner have been examined on merit. Accordingly, it is further clarified that the examination of issues raised in this review petition, is under the unique facts of this case and therefore, this order shall not be a precedent in any other case. 47) Hence, this review petition fails on all counts. 48) Resultantly, this review petition is dismissed. 49) The parties are left to bear their own cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Private Secretary Digitally signed by Champak Rajbongshi Date: 2026.06.02 11:51:46 +05'30'