Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010191992017 2026:GAU-AS:10010-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/45/2017 PRADIP CHANDA S/O. LT. BANKA BIHARI CHANDA, R/O. VILL. NO. 2 SAKURA, P.O. GOHPUR, P.S. GOHPUR, DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS THROUGH - THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH - THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SONITPUR P.O. TEZPUR PIN. 784001 DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BISWANATH CHARIALI P.O. BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI ASSAM PIN. 784176. Page No.# 2/4 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER BISWANATH CHARIALI P.O. BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI ASSAM PIN. 784176 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. E AHMED, MR.P BISWAS,MR.S C BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAMR. 2,3,4,5., ASSTT.S.G.I.(R. 1.) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 21-07-2026 (K.R.Surana,J) Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel along with Mr. F. A. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned CGC; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing counsel, ECI; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the State and Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing counsel, FT and Border matters. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 23.02.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 4th, Tezpur, Assam, in FT Case No. 405/2015 arising out of DC Case No. 73/2002 thereby declaring him to be a foreigner of the stream between 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 and the petitioner was directed to register his name before the registering authority within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of the opinion as per section 6A (3) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and Part- IV of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. Page No.# 3/4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner namely, late Banka Bihari Chanda, had migrated into India in the year 1964 due to communal riots in East Pakistan and thereafter, the Government of India gave rehabilitation by way of allotment of land to the father of the petitioner vide Rehabilitation Bond executed on 20.03.1968. Accordingly, it is submitted that there was an inadvertent error in not exhibiting the Relief Eligibility Certificate which discloses that the father of the petitioner arrived in India on 25.06.1964, along with 3 (three) other dependants and therefore, he prays that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to prove the documents of his father relating to migration. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for FT and Border matters has submitted that notwithstanding the plea that has been taken by the petitioner in this writ petition, in response to the queries of the learned Tribunal which is available at back page of page 57 of the TCR, the petitioner has stated as follows:- “Court Question: On oath: I have not submitted any documents showing the name of my family members prior to 1968. The bond of 1968 I submitted did not disclose the name of my family members. I do not know whether my father or my family members have casted vote prior to 1971.” 5. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no error committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order and in view of the said admission, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be acceded to by the State. 6. On a query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the said opinion dated 23.02.2016, the petitioner had registered himself and disclosed about his wife and children by making an application dated 01.04.2016, and the Special Foreigners Regional Registration Page No.# 4/4 Officer, Sonitpur, Tezpur had registered the petitioner as a foreigner of the stream of 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 vide registration No. TZ/FRRO/16/420 dated 01.04.2016. 7. On a perusal of the records, as the Court finds that the petitioner, on the query put by the learned Tribunal, had stated that he had not submitted any documents showing the names of the family members prior to 1968. Moreover, having observed that neither in the written statement nor in the evidence on affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has disclosed about the Rehabilitation Registration Certificate, this Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction would not appreciate the documents as a Court of first instance. Moreover, as the petitioner has already been registered by the Special FRRO on 01.04.2016, pursuant to the impugned opinion dated 23.02.2016, the petitioner would be otherwise be eligible to avail the benefit of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 in terms of the mandate of the said provision. 8. Accordingly, the nature of relief as prayed for in the writ petition cannot be allowed. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed on the terms and observations made hereinabove. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. The Registry shall send back the TCR. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant