GAHC010144582025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/3822/2025

MD RAHIJ UDDIN @ RAHIJUDDIN @ ROHIJ UDDIN

S/O LT. BAKKAR ALI, P/R/O VILL- PANIKHAITI, P.S.- BOKO, DIST- KAMRUP,

ASSAM VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001

2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

NEW DELHI-110001

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

HOME DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-781006

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

BARPETA PIN-781301

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)

BARPETA PIN-781301

6:THE COORDINATOR

NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS

BHANGAGARH

GUWAHATI-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A W AMAN, S T AMAN,MD A RAHMAN,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

ORDER

12.11.2025 (S.P. Khaund, J)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted challenging an opinion/order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the learned th Member, Foreigners' Tribunal (7 ), Barpeta in F.T. Case No.111/2019 arising out of Reference Case No. 5155/98. By the impugned opinion/order, the petitioner has been declared a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. The primary ground of challenge is that the order is an ex parte one whereby the petitioner was deprived of a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

2. As per the facts projected, a notice was issued by the Foreigners’ Tribunal on 10.03.2023, returnable on 24.04.2023. The report of the Process Server dated 28.04.2023, in the Trial Court Records reveals that notices could not be served even after diligently searching for the petitioner near his place of residence. The Process Server has reported that after thoroughly searching for the petitioner, it was learnt that the petitioner left his residence without informing the Investigating Agency. The petitioner’s last place of residence also could not be traced out. A copy of the notice was pasted on the notice board of the Office of the Gaonburha in presence of witnesses. On receipt of the Process Server’s report, the Tribunal passed an order on 04.05.2023, that the notice has been deemed to be served under Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The learned Tribunal thereafter allowed several opportunities to the petitioner to appear and contest the case and several dates were fixed on 12.05.2023, 20.05.2023, 29.05.2023, 07.06.2023, 17.06.2023 and 17.07.2023 on which date the matter was taken up for final disposal culminating in the impugned opinion.

3. We have heard Shri A. W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Home Department and NRC; Shri N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; and Shri P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State.

4. Shri A. W. Aman, the learned counsel has primarily based his argument on the aspect that the notice was not served as per Provisions of Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. It is submitted that there is no provision to hang the notice in the notice board of the Gaonburha’s Office.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the FT and Border matters, Mr. G. Sharma has strenuously opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the conduct of the procedee is under cloud as the procedee left his place of residence without informing the Investigating Officer despite the fact that he was wary of the inquiry and investigation against his citizenship.

6. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as observed by this Court, it is apparent that notice was not served as per Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigner’s Tribunals Or