Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, PRANJAL DAS
Sultana Begum @ Sultana Khan @ Sutrabibi Begum, D/O. Adam Khan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Sastri Bhawan, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of writ petition and representation (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention regarding procedural history and fairness (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. assessment of petitioner’s conduct and recorded negligence (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. statutory requirement to resolve foreigners' tribunal cases expeditiously (Para 8) |
| 5. dismissal of petition and return of records (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order dated 13.08.2025 whereby learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.7 , Tezpur, Sonitpur has refused to vacate the ex parte order dated 20.04.2025 passed in the connected Case No. FTDC 1442/2016.
2. We have heard Shri MA Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department; Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NRC; Shri P. Sarma, learned GA, Assam; Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC.
3. Shri Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that though the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 has referred the ex parte order dated as 20.04.2025, t
Equitable relief under writ jurisdiction is discretionary and contingent upon the conduct of the party. Where a litigant demonstrates persistent negligence and fails to contest proceedings despite ad....
The burden of proving citizenship rests on the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process.
The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the proceedee, and failure to contest leads to the presumption of foreign nationality.
The burden of proving citizenship rests upon the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examining the decision-making process.
The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act remains with the individual, regardless of representation, and failure to provide evidence justifies a tribunal's determination of foreign n....
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee, and the Writ Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the decision-making process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the service of notice must be proper, and the rejection of a prayer for vacating an ex parte order should not be merely on technical grounds.
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 jus....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
