Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010315732019 2026:GAU-AS:9678 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/38/2020 MAHAMMAD ALI S/O- LATE ISMAIL HUSSAIN, R/O- VILL- NO.5, BARUAJHAR, P.O- CHAKRABASTI, P.S- DALGAON, DISTRICT DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI 01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI 01 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 Page No.# 2/4 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) DARRANG DISTRICT DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER AND LRCR DALGAON REVENUE CIRCLE P.O- DALGAON DISTRICT DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784126 8:MAHEJ ALI C/O- LATE EYAKUB ALI R/O- VILL NO.5 BARUAJHAR P.O- CHAKRABASTI P.S- DALGAON DISTRICT DARRANG ASSA Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. TK Bhuyan Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. SS Roy CGC Mr. HK Hazarika, Govt. Advocate Mr. G Sarma Standing Counsel, NRC For respondent Nos.2, 4 & 6 Mr. AI Ali for respondent No.3 Mr. MU Mahmud for respondent No.8 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 15.07.2026 Heard Mr. TK Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SS Roy, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of Page No.# 3/4 the respondents in the Union of India; Mr. HK Hazarika, the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for the State respondents; Mr. G Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel, NRC who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6; Mr. A I Ali, the learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India, who appears on behalf of respondent No.3; and Mr. MU Mahmud, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in taking steps for carrying out an enquiry as to whether the respondent No.8 is an Indian National or not. 3. This Court duly takes note of that pursuant to the representation so submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, Mangaldai and vide a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang at Mangaldai on 07.12.2015, it was opined that upon the enquiry being carried out, it was found that the respondent No.8 is an Indian National and is the son of Late Eyakub Ali. 4. It was also mentioned in the enquiry report that during the enquiry, the respondent No.8 was examined and during his examination, he has produced some documents/voters list of the years 1966, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2013 in support of his Indian nationality. The said enquiry report is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’. 5. Taking into account the above, nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the instant writ petition, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant