Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010116552026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3106/2026 AFIYA KHATUN ALIAS AFIA BEGUM W/O LATE IDRISH ALI, D/O LATE ASOR ALI, VILL- VELOWATER, P.S.- RANGAPARA, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-01. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY NIRBACHAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI-1. 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) Page No.# 2/6 SONITPUR TEZPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR H A AHMED,N PERVIN,MR. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 15.06.2026 (K.R Surana, J) Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC; Mr. R. Baishya, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 26.04.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 7th, Tezpur, Balipara, in Case No. F.T. (IMDT) 312/2016, arising out of Ref. No. TZP(B)/5744/04, dated 27.09.2004 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner/illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. On failure on the part of the petitioner to adduce any evidence after filing of written statement. 4. As there is inordinate delay in assailing the impugned opinion, on a query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the Page No.# 3/6 petitioner had filed her written statement on 29.06.2018 and the matter was thereafter fixed for evidence on 18.07.2018. However, on 18.07.2018, the petitioner had filed a petition for adjournment seeking some more time as the original copy of certain relevant documents could not be collected for which evidence could not be filed. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 14.08.2018 and once again the petitioner prayed for some more time as the relevant documents could not be collected. The prayer for adjournment was allowed as an extreme last chance fixing the next date on 26.09.2018. Once again, the petitioner prayed for an adjournment but the said learned Tribunal, after rejecting the prayer for adjournment fixed the case for argument on 09.10.2018. However, the petitioner remained absent on 09.10.2018 and the learned Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the petitioner fixed the matter for opinion on 04.12.2018 and thereafter re-fixed the matter for opinion on 26.04.2019. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned counsel engaged on behalf of the petitioner had not informed the petitioner regarding the last chance being given by the learned Tribunal to give evidence. However, it is submitted that the husband of the petitioner was looking after the case but he died in the year 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic and accordingly, the petitioner could not keep track of the case and only when the police visited the house of the petitioner in the month of May, 2025 then the petitioner came to know about the said opinion dated 26.04.2019. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the case of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 1, had submitted as the issue related to deprivation of fundamental rights and rights of citizenship, the doors of the Court should not be shut out and accordingly, it is prayed that despite the delay in assailing the said opinion, the petitioner be Page No.# 4/6 given an opportunity to prove her case. By further relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 174 has submitted that due care should be taken that no genuine Indian citizen is thrown out of the Country. 7. By relying on the copy of the opinion dated 14.12.2016 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (8) Sonitpur, Thelamara, Assam, in F.T.(8) Case No.431/2016, arising out of Reference TZP(B) Case No.1262/07, it has been submitted that by the said opinion dated 14.12.2016, the brother of the petitioner namely Salamuddin @ Abdul Salam, was declared to be not a foreigner by answering the reference in negative. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to provide evidence. 8. The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion. He has submitted that the name of the petitioner was not disclosed by the proceedee as his sister in the opinion dated 14.12.2016 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (8), Sonitpur, Thelamara, Assam, in F.T.(8) Case No.431/2016, arising out of Reference TZP(B) Case No.1262/07, but only after that opinion was passed, the petitioner claims the said proceedee without taking such plea in her written statement filed on 29.06.2018, now it is claimed that he is the brother. 9. Accordingly, it is submitted that as there was inordinate delay in filing of the writ petition, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. 10. On perusal of the opinion dated 14.12.2016 passed in proceedings against one Salamuddin @ Abdul Salam, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal had not recorded the stand of the said proceedee regarding the existence of any sister. Moreover, in the written statement filed by the petitioner on 29.06.2018 before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, it is seen that there is no statement that Page No.# 5/6 Salamuddin @ Abdul Salam, the proceedee in F.T.(8) Case No. 431/2016 was her brother. Moreover, it is seen that no document has been filed in this writ petition showing the existence of the petitioner and the proceedee of F.T.(8) Case No. 431/2016 together. Morever, it is seen that the opinion in F.T.(8) Case No. 431/2016 was passed on 14.12.2016 and it is the petitioner who had filed her written statement on 29.06.2018, but there is no reference therein to her brother. 11. The Court does not find any sufficient explanation regarding the inordinate delay. The statements made in the writ petition indicate that the opinion impugned in this writ petition was passed on 26.04.2019 and even if it is assumed that the husband of the petitioner was looking after the matter, but the husband of the petitioner is stated to have died in the year 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, the petitioner is found to have accepted the opinion dated 26.04.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (7th), Tezpur, Balipara in Case No. F.T.(IMDT) 312/2016, arising out of Ref. No. TZP(B)/5744/04 without referring any challenge to the said opinion in reasonable time thereafter. 12. The provisions of the Limitation Act, not apply to writ petition. However, there is an inordinate delay in assailing the impugned opinion, where the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner due to non-filing of evidence on affidavit, and the opinion was rendered against the petitioner and in favor of the State. The petitioner had not assailed the said opinion within a reasonable time. Therefore, as the status of the petitioner as a foreigner has attained finality for more than 7 years after the opinion was rendered on 26.04.2019, and therefore the Court does not find any reason for entertaining the writ petition filed at the belated stage after 7 years of the passing of the said opinion on a plea that has Page No.# 6/6 no support by any pleading before the learned Foreigners Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant