The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the petitioner, and failure to present evidence results in the Tribunal's decision being upheld unless jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice occur.

JUDGMENT :

M. Nandi, J.

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, FT matters; Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order of the Foreigners Tribunal dated 09.03.2022, passed in F.T. Case No.606(III)/2013 [Ref: IM(D)T Case No.269/10], declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the instant writ petition is filed challenging the impugned ex parte order dated 09.03.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.III, Barpeta, whereby the petitioner has been declared as an foreigner. In terms of the said ex parte order dated 09.03.2022, the petitioner was arrested on 07.08.2024 and since then he has been detained in the Transit Camp/Detention Camp, Matia, Goalpara.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal on 05.05.2021. Thereafter the petitioner could not obtain the necessary documents/voter lists etc. from the concerned office at the relevant point of time and as such he could not submit his written statement. Subsequently the petitioner did not appear before the learned Tribunal as because some members of NGO assured the petitioner that they would contest the case of the petitioner before Higher Court on free of cost and the petitioner is not required to appear before the Tribunal.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner being ignorant about the fact, having no knowledge about court proceeding, and as such on good faith, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Tribunal and accordingly, the learned Tribunal passed an ex parte order dated 09.03.2022, declaring the petitioner as foreigner.

6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no knowledge about the said ex parte order. On 07.08.2024, when the petitioner has been taken into custody by the Barpeta Border Police and sent him to the Detention Camp, then he came to know that the Tribunal had passed an ex parte order in connection with the case on which he received the notice.

7. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to set aside the ex parte order and to release the petitioner from Matia Detention Camp. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal by giving one opportunity to the petitioner to decide his case on merit for the interest of justice.

8. By relying on the judgment of this Court vide WP(C) 635/2025 ( Rokman Khan Vs. Union of India and Ors. ), the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant case is of similar nature and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal on the basis of the observation of this Court in the case of Rokman Khan (supra)

9. In response, learned Standing Counsel, F.T matters, Mr. G. Sarma has submitted that the notice was properly served to the petitioner. After that the petitioner has appeared before the Tribunal and filed several petitions praying for time to file written statement. Subsequently, he did not appear before the Tribunal in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the