Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010121112026 2026:GAU-AS:8893- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3194/2026 RONIA BEGUM ALIAS MUSSTT RUNIYA BEGAM D/O- LT. TUJAMAL HUSSAIN ALIAS TOJAMAL HOQUE, W/O- NURU ISLAM ALIAS MD NOOR ISIAM , R/O- VILIAGE- ROUMARI PATHAR, P.O- ROUMARI PATHAR, P.S- TARABARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781312. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and othrs REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE ASSAM CO ORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH ASSAM GHY-5. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. Page No.# 2/5 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE TARABARI POLICE STATION DIST- BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S ISLAM, MR. P RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17.06.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Kakoti, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. R.B. Borah, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the ex parte impugned opinion dated 12.10.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 7, Barpeta, in FT Case No. 320/19, corresponding to Ref/ Case No.886/2003, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. Page No.# 3/5 3. The case projected by the petitioner is that the notice was not served in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court is inclined to quote paragraph 3 (there are two paragraphs numbered as 3 and the first paragraph no.3 deals with service of process): 3. Accordingly, after registration of the case, notice was issued to the OP to appear and to file written statement (W/S for short) and to produce evidence in support of her citizenship. After service, notice returned with service report. On perusal of the service report, it is found that in pursuant to the notice, the process server accompanied by Gaonburah went to the address mentioned in the notice and after enquiring the local village people came to know that the OP had left the aforesaid village and went to some other place by changing her place of residence, without intimation to the investigating agency. Due to the aforesaid circumstances, the process server after due diligent search could not locate the last resident of O.P and as an alternative, affixed/pasted a copy of the notice on the office of the gaonburah in presence of the witness, Aminul Haque, Gaonpradhan. The process server along with the service report appended a certificate of Sarkari Gaonpradhan Aminul Haque, and as such, in view of the said service report of the Process Server, notice has been deemed to be duly served in the manners as provided under 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 as amended (in short F.(T) order, 1964). 4. Although the learned Standing Counsel for the FT and Border matters has made submissions in support of the impugned opinion, the observations made in paragraph 3, quoted above, disclose that the process server, accompanied by the Gaonburah, went to the address of the petitioner and came to know that she had changed her residence. In the same breath, it has also been mentioned that the process server, after diligent search, could not locate the last residence of the petitioner. Therefore, notice was affixed on the notice board of the Gaonburah. 5. The provisions of Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, Page No.# 4/5 1964 is quoted below: "(f) if the proceedee has changed the place of residence or place of work, without intimation to the investigating agency, the process server shall affix a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the proceedee ordinarily resides or last resided or reportedly resided or personally worked for gain or carries on business, and shall return the original to the Foreigners Tribunal from which it was issued with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed;" 6. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the notice was not served in accordance with the provisions of Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which vitiates the impugned ex parte opinion dated 12.10.2023. 7. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to set aside the ex parte opinion dated 12.10.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 7, Barpeta, in FT Case No. 320/19, corresponding to Ref/ Case No.886/2003. 8. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Foreigners' Tribunal for a fresh opportunity to the petitioner by permitting her to file her written statement, adduce evidence and take such other steps as she may be so advised. 9. The petitioner who is duly represented by her learned counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal No. 7, Barpeta, on 13.07.2026 and along with a certified copy of this order, shall also file her written statement of defence as well as documents on which she intends to rely. The learned Tribunal shall grant reasonable time to the petitioner to Page No.# 5/5 adduce evidence and to take such other steps as she may be so advised. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails to appear on the said date, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 10. The learned Tribunal shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceeding within the time prescribed under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, as far as practicable. 11. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands allowed by remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal for fresh decision. 12. There shall be no order as to cost. 13. The Registry shall send back the records to the said Foreigners' Tribunal forthwith. 14. The learned standing counsel for the Border and FT matters shall send a downloaded copy of this order to the Secretary, Home and Political (B) Department so that the said authority is made aware that although the Foreigners Tribunals are required to act in accordance with the Foreigners Act, 1946, Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 still the learned Tribunal has failed to take note of the provisions of Order 3(5)(f) of the said 1964 Order, which perhaps calls for regular training of the learned Members. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant