Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010094842021 2026:GAU-AS:9641-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3186/2021 ROMA DAS D/O. LT. SURESH CHANDRA DUTTA, W/O. LT. KHAGEN DAS, VILL. NIZ LALUK, P.S. BIHUPURIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, PIN-784160, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA. 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENSHIP (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005. 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN-787001. Page No.# 2/7 6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B) DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN-787001 ASSAM. 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE POLICE STATION- BIHPURIA DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N SARKAR, MR P K BASU Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 13.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Chaudhury, learned CGC; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sharma, 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 impugned opinion dated 30.03.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Lakhimpur (1st), North Lakhimpur, in Lakhimpur FT (1st) Case No.4064/2011, arising out of District No. 33/97, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant. Page No.# 3/7 3. In view of the nature of the order which is proposed to be passed, the Court does not find any reason to burden this order with the pleadings and evidence of the parties. 4. It is suffice to mention that on being referred by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, the Lakhimpur FT (1st) Case No. 4064/2011, was registered. The records reveal that in the written statement the petitioner had disclosed that previously a case was registered against her before the same learned Tribunal which was registered as Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 6311/16, bearing District No. 07/15 by which she was declared to be a citizen of India and not a foreigner vide opinion dated 15.12.2016. The copy of the said opinion dated 15.12.2016 was referred to as Ext. VIII in the evidence-on- affidavit filed by the petitioner. From the evidence-on-affidavit of the petitioner who examined herself as DW-1, it is noticed that she had exhibited the following 8 (eight) documents:- Ext.i is the photocopy of voter list of her father’s name. Ext.ii is the photocopy of the said sale deed executed in favour my father. Ext.iii is the photocopy of said patta issued in the name of my father and Ext.iv is the revenue paying receipt in respect of the said land. Ext.v is the photocopy of voter list of my husband and me of legislative assembly election 1989, of the said address. Ext.vi is the photocopy of voter list wherein my name has been mentioned in the said legislative assembly election of 1997 at the aforementioned address. Ext.vii is the copy of PAN card wherein my father’s name has been recorded. Ext.viii is the copy of the opinion dated 15.12.16 5. As per the Tribunal’s record, the evidence-on-affidavit was submitted on 10.12.2018. It may also be stated that against all the exhibits it was mentioned that those exhibits were copies/ photocopies. The petitioner was Page No.# 4/7 cross-examined on 29.12.2018. However, the learned Tribunal in the guise of recording cross-examination had omitted recording of 3 (three) exhibits of the petitioner being Ext.ii, Ext.iii and Ext.iv, which were copies of the sale deed dated 26.10.1964 purported to be land purchased by the petitioners father (Ext.ii), photocopy of the patta in the name of her father (Ext.iii), and land revenue paid receipt (Ext.iv). There is no corresponding order in the order sheet as to why the documents were excluded. The Tribunal’s records reveals that by excluding the above referred exhibits, the other exhibits were re-cast Ext.ii to Ext.v and all the 5 (five) exhibited documents were stated to be proved in original. As stated above there is no order as to what compelled the learned Tribunal to discard 3 (three) exhibited documents. Moreover, it is noticed that if the petitioner has filed exhibited documents along with the evidence-on- affidavit, there was no reason for the learned Tribunal to remove those 3 (three) documents and place it elsewhere in the record. Moreover, it is noticed that out of the discarded documents Ext.ii, Ext.iii are available at page no. 69, 70 and 71 of the TCR and it appears that the said Ext.ii was counter signed by the learned Member on 08.12.2016. 6. The learned Tribunal by referring to Ext.V which was the earlier opinion of the earlier Foreigners Tribunals cases against the petitioner, made the following observations:- “Exhibit-5 is Final Order copy of LFT Case No.6311/2016 against the proceedee and declared her as Not Foreigner on the basis of documents i.e. i) Photocopy of certified extract copy of Electoral Roll of 1971. District_Jalpariguri, P.S-Alipurduar, West Bengal, ii) Photocopy of registered sale Deed, iii) Photocopy of Ration Card which are not proved in accordance with law.” 7. The learned standing counsel for the FT and border matters has made his submission in support of the impugned opinion. Page No.# 5/7 8. On consideration of the materials available on record, the Court finds that there is no order as why Ext.ii, Ext.iii and Ext.iv mentioned in the evidence- on-affidavit of the petitioner were discarded and what compelled the learned Tribunal to re-number the other exhibits as Ext.ii to Ext.v. The learned Tribunal was not sitting in appeal or review against the opinion passed in LFT Case No.6311/2016, and therefore, the said learned Tribunal could not have observed that the documents were not proved in accordance with law. 9. It is no longer res integra that by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Case of Abdul Kuddus Vs. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604, the Supreme Court of India had held that the principles of res judicata are applicable in cases of quasi judicial authorities like the Foreigners Tribunals. 10. The said position was reinforced in the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Fine Makers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies and Ors., (2025) 5 SCC 722. 11. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the earlier opinion of the learned Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur dated 15.12.2016, passed in Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 6311/16, could not have been discarded by the same learned Tribunal in the impugned opinion in a casual manner. 12. It may be appropriate to mention herein that the impugned opinion was passed on 30.03.2019 and that the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus (supra) was delivered on 17.05.2019. However, since the principles of res judicata was decided, that would have binding effect also on this Court and therefore, the impugned opinion dated 30.03.2019, would not be sustainable on the grounds of principles of res judicata. Moreover, it may Page No.# 6/7 also be further mentioned that the law relating to application of res judicata to quasi judicial authorities was laid down by the Special Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of 7-Judges in the case of Ujjambai Vs. State of U.P and Ors., AIR (1962) SC 1621, wherein it has been held that any quasi judicial authority cannot take a view contrary to a co-ordinate or predecessor authority at an earlier point of time. It has been further laid down that mere misconstruction of a provision of law does not render the decision of a quasi judicial Tribunal void (as being beyond its jurisdiction) and that it is a good and valid decision in law until and unless it is corrected in the appropriate manner. 13. Therefore, so long as the earlier decision of the same learned Tribunal dated 15.12.2016, passed in Lakhimpur FT-1 Case No. 6311/16 stands, the same must be regarded as one authorized by law unless the said earlier decision is set aside by an appropriate forum and in the manner as prescribed by law. 14. Accordingly, the impugned opinion dated 30.03.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Lakhimpur (1st), North Lakhimpur, in Lakhimpur FT (1st) Case No.4064/2011 is hereby set aside. 15. The matter is remanded back for a fresh decision by the said learned Tribunal from the stage of cross-examination of the DW-1 because it is in the course of the cross-examination of DW-1, 3 (three) exhibited documents were discarded by the learned Tribunal, which is not found to be in accordance with law without a corresponding order disclosing reasons as to why those 3 (three) exhibited documents were discarded. The act of the learned Tribunal in discarding the 3 (three) exhibited documents in the guise of cross-examination held not to be sustainable. 16. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Page No.# 7/7 17. The petitioner, who is duly represented by her learned counsel shall appear before the said learned Tribunal within the outer limit of 14.08.2026 and by producing a certified copy of the order await further orders to be passed by the said learned Tribunal. 18. The Registry is directed to send back the Tribunals records expeditiously. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant