Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SHAMIMA JAHAN
Shajida Khatun W/O Habibar Rahman – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for writ jurisdiction regarding ex-parte foreigners tribunal orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. dispute over service of summons and compliance with procedural fairness rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. granting opportunity to defend in interest of justice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. adherence to statutory timelines and consequences of procedural non-compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
S.K. Medhi, J.
Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
2. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed putting to challenge an order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.3, Darrang in FT Case No. 3325/2012 arising out of Ref- IM(D)T Case No. 5933/98 whereby the petitioner has been declared a foreigner post 1971.The primary ground of challenge is that the order in question has been passed ex-parte.
3. Notice was issued in this case on 08.09.2025 and records were called for pursuant to which, the records have been received.
4. We have heard Shri S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitio
The court reaffirmed the necessity of adhering to prescribed legal procedures for notice service, emphasizing the right to contest findings affecting citizenship.
Proper procedure for notice service must be strictly followed; deviations are not permissible as established by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
The court ruled the necessity of proper notice in Foreigners' Tribunal proceedings to secure fair representation, deeming the order ex parte due to inadequate service.
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 lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and failure to participate in proceedings results in the declaration of foreigner status.
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 proving citizenship rests on the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process.
Failure to properly serve notice under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 renders Tribunal opinions invalid, requiring adherence to legal service protocols.
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
