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 adequate opportunities, the court will decline to vacate an ex parte order, particularly when the matter requires time-bound disposal.

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, the same should be 16.04.2024. This aspect has also been verified from the original records, which have been requisitioned by this Court, vide order dated 25.03.2026.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also filed her written statement and one chance be given to her to contest the proceeding.

5. On the other hand, Ms. A. Verma, the learned Standing Counsel, Home Department has submitted that the petition has been filed with suppression of material facts. She has submitted that the records would reveal that the proceeding which is of the year 2016 had culminated in an ex parte order dated 28.09.2022. However, there was an application to vacate the said ex parte order which was accordingly done on 06.12.2022 with a direction to file the written statement. Thereafter, the written statement was filed on 19.07.2023. It however appears that the petitioner had again neglected to appear and contest the proceeding leading to passing of the order dated 16.04.2024. The said order was sought to be vacated by filing Petition No.1/2025 dated 28.07.2025 which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 13.08.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner had wilfully and deliberately neglected to contest the proceeding and accordingly she is not entitled to any equitable relief.

6. The rival submissions made have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court including the records of the Tribunal have been carefully perused.

7. At the outset, we would like to put on record that in matters of vacating ex parte order, normally this Court takes a lenient view. At the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the jurisdiction exercised by us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable in nature where the conduct of the party approaching this Court is of paramount importance. The records would reveal that there was an earlier ex parte order dated 28.09.2022. It further reveals that the petitioner had filed an application for vacating the ex parte order which was accordingly done on 06.12.2022 with a direction to file the written statement. It however transpires that the written statement was not filed immediately and was done after more than one year i.e. 19.07.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner had again neglected to appear before the Tribunal and vide the order dated 16.04.2024, the learned Tribunal has passed an ex parte order. The said ex parte order was sought to be vacated by filing Petition No. 1/2025 after a period of one year three months i.e. 28.07.2025. The learned Tribunal has accordingly passed the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 refusing to vacate the ex parte order.

8. We have seen that the proceeding is lingering since the year 2016 and in spite of a fair and adequate chance