B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This batch of writ petitions involves 61 petitioners, who have been declared as foreigners by the respective Foreigners Tribunals. They have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the legality and validity of such declarations. Since the issue involved is the same, which is - whether the petitioners are illegal migrants to Assam after the cutoff date i.e. 25.3.1971, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, dealing with each and every case independently.

2. One interesting feature of all the cases, except three, is that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Foreigners Tribunals are all Ex-parte. The petitioners, except in three cases, did not respond to the proceedings before the Tribunals, which the learned State counsel describes as a methodical ploy to prolong the proceedings on untenable grounds.

3. Barring three, in all the cases, the common ground(s) is/are that the Ex-parte proceedings and judgments are because of non-receipt of notice, and/or although the engaged advocate (s) was/were entrusted with the required instructions/documents, they did not take proper steps towards defending the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are all Indian citizens. They have annexed photocopies and/or typed copies of certain documents, mostly voter lists in support of their such claim. Barring one case, all the cases are after the decision in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920. As we all know that, in the said decision, the Apex Court struck down the provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. As a result, the Tribunals and the appellate Tribunals constituted under the said Act, ceased to function and the cases pending before the 1. M.D.T. stood transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964. The direction was issued for deciding the pending cases in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, 1946. The direction was also issued to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to effectively deal with the cases of foreigners, who have illegally come from Bangladesh or illegally residing in Assam.

4. When the effect and direction of the Apex Court was sought to be diluted, by promulgating the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006 and also by amending the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, by two pieces of subordinate legislations, the Apex Court quashed both the pieces of legislation by its judgment and order reported in (2007)1SCC174 (Sarbanandu Sonowal (II) v. Union of India and Ors.). While allowing the writ petition, the Apex Court issued direction to the respondents to forthwith implement the directions issued in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) case, referred to above. It was observed that no time limit for implementation of the direction was fixed in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) case, with the hope that the Central Government would implement the direction within a reasonable time, but there was no adequate reasons for justifying the non-implementation of the said direction. Accordingly, the direction was issued to the Union of India to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the 1964 Order effectively dealing with the cases of foreigners within a period of four months from the date of the judgment, which is 5th December, 2006.

5. In the aforesaid decision in Sonowal (II) case, the Apex Court while deprecating the action of the respondents towards promulgating the aforesaid two pieces of legislation, observed that there is lack of will in the matter ensuring that the illegal migrants are sent out of the country. The Apex Court observed thus:

64. In the face of the clear directions issued in Sonowal I it was for the authority concerned to strengthen the Tribunals under the 1964 Order and to make them work. Instead of doing so, the 2006 Order has been promulgate