Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010123112026 2026:GAU-AS:8995- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3229/2026 ASANUDDIN ALIAS ASHAN ALI ALIAS ASAN ALI S/O - RIYAZUDDIN MIYA ALIAS RAIZUDDIN, R/O VILL. CHANDANPUR, P.S. - TARABARI, DIST - BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-01. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOK ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110001. 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 05. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST. BARPETA Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN - 781301. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM. PIN-781301. 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE TARABARI POLICE STATION DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, MS. P AHMED,R KHA 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 22.06.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M. I. Hussain, learned, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.K.S. Baruah learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the FT and NRC matters, and Ms. R. B. Rora, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 03.07.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No-7, Barpeta, Page No.# 3/5 in Case No. F.T. 61/2017, corresponding to R/Case No. 4908/98, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. In this case, the two Policemen went to the place mentioned in the notice, found the petitioner at his residence. However, neither any family member agreed to receive the notice and moreover, no person from the village was willing to sign or put a thumb impression as a witness and accordingly, the notice, being unserved, was returned to the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal accepted the said police report and deemed the notice to be duly served on the petitioner, and thereafter, passed an ex parte order after waiting for the appearance of the petitioner on 15.05.2018, 23.05.2018, 05.06.2018 and 13.06.2018. 4. It would be relevant to quote Order 3 (5) (e) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964:- "if the proceedee or an available adult member of his or her family refuses to accept the notice, the process server shall give a report to the Foreigners Tribunal 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 and the process server shall obtain the signature or thumb impression of such witness, if he or she is present and willing to sign or put his or her thumb-impression, as the case may be." As the concerned Police personnel who had gone to serve the notice of the proceedings could not get a witness willing to sign the process, he was in lack of compliance with Order 3 (5) (e) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 5. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to interfere with the said ex parte opinion Page No.# 4/5 dated 03.07.2018. 6. Taking note of the fact that the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal -vs- Union of India, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, had equated the illegal influx of migrants into the State of Assam through external aggression. Therefore, till such time, the competent authorities make an endeavour to amend the Immigration and Foreigners’ Order, 2025, to empower a police personnel deputed to serve notice that when persons to whom notice is issued are available at the address and are not willing to sign or accept the service of process, the Court is inclined to provide that, henceforth, it would be permissible for the police personnel, who are serving notices to take the photograph of the person to whom notice is intended, if he is found at the address, and to paste the notice at the address given in the notice, and take a photograph of the service of such process, which should contain the geo-tagging, so that the location and description of time in the photograph can be ascertained. Thereafter, on receipt of such process report along with the said two photographs, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunals, will take a call as to whether or not to accept such service of notice on the proceedee. 7. However, the above would be at the discretion of the concerned learned Foreigners’ Tribunal to pass appropriate order(s) in that regard. 8. In this case in hand, the provision of Section 3 (5) (e) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, is not found to be complied with. Therefore, the ex parte opinion dated 03.07.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No-7, Barpeta, in Case No. F.T. 61/2017, corresponding to R/Case No. 4908/98, is hereby set aside. 9. As the petitioner, namely, Asanuddin @ Ashan Ali @ Asan Ali, is duly Page No.# 5/5 represented by his learned counsel, he is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No-7, Barpeta, on 27.07.2026, along with a certified copy of this order, and shall also file his written statement of defence. Thereupon, the learned Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of the proceedings within the time as provided under Order 3 (14) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order, 1964, corresponding to Order 17 (14) of the Immigration and Foreigners’ Order, 2025. 10. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the FT and Border matters, shall forward a copy of this order to the Home and Political (B) Department. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant