Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010091292026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2958/2026 AFIA BEGUM D/O LATE ARMAN ALI, W/O ZAHIRUDDIN AHMED, R/O VILL- TINIKHANIA, P.O.- DUFFALAGARH, P.S.- HALEM, DIST- BISHWANATH (ASSAM) VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFIARS, NEW DELHI-1 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-5 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI -110001 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BISWANATH ASSAM PIN- 784176 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) BISWANATH (ASSAM) PIN- 784176 6:COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS BHANGAGARH Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S BORA, MR. P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 10.06.2026 (S. K. Medhi, J) Heard Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has put to challenge an impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 2nd, Biswanath at Gohpur in FT (B-2nd)/GPR Case No. 2091/2017 (SP Ref Case TZP.(B)/06/58) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner/illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that she could not contest the proceeding which culminated in the ex-parte order. 3. Ms. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were vital documents which would have a relevance in the adjudication process and due to certain circumstances which were beyond the control of the petitioner, the said documents could not be collected which are said to be in the parental house of the petitioner. She has submitted that a chance may be granted to her to contest the case. 4. On the other hand, Ms. A. Verma, the learned Standing Counsel, Home Department has strenuously objected to the prayers made. She has submitted Page No.# 3/4 that the petitioner had neglected to contest the proceedings in spite of the fact that she had appeared and took time for filing written statement. She has also contended that a proceeding of the present nature cannot be an endless exercise and the learned Tribunal had been considerate enough and had granted several opportunities in spite of which the petitioner had neglected to appear. 5. The learned counsel for the rest of the respondents have endorsed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Home Department and have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly reflect that upon receipt of notice, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Tribunal on 22.11.2024 and had filed a petition seeking time to file the written statement. However, no written statement was filed and on the other hand, petitions were filed on the subsequent dates namely, 20.12.2024, 18.01.2025, 18.02.2025 and 17.03.2025 and on each occasion, the learned Tribunal had granted time to the petitioner to file the written statement. The learned Tribunal has also recorded that as many as 6 (six) occasions were granted to the petitioner before passing of the order dated 17.03.2025 to proceed ex-parte. 7. The reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order appears to be cogent and in accordance with law. 8. We are prima facie of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. However, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that since the petitioner contends that there are documents which are presently with her, an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to contest. At the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the law holding the field which is laid down in the Page No.# 4/4 Foreigners’ (Tribunal) Order, 1964 where there is a mandate for completion of a proceeding within a period of 60 days. For ready reference, Order 3 (14) is extracted herein below: “(14) The Foreigners Tribunal shall dispose of the case within a period of sixty days of the receipt of the reference from the competent authority.” 9. We are also of the opinion that negligence having prima facie been established, the scope of an opportunity to appear has to be subjected to a cost to be paid to the Gauhati High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 is set aside with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the learned Tribunal on or before 23.06.2026 along with her written statement and evidence on affidavit of all the witnesses and the documents. On such appearance, the learned Tribunal would accept the same and would take charge of the proceeding from the said date. 11. As noted above, the learned Tribunal would make an endeavour to complete the proceeding within the prescribed time. The present order is however subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only in favour of Gauhati High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund. 12. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear along with the other requirements on the date specified, the order in question dated 29.04.2025 would revive. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant