GAHC010050952025

2025:GAU-

AS:14005-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/1436/2025

MAYURI BEGUM

WIFE OF NUR MAHAMMAD ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHENGLIDIA,

BALARTARI, P.O. CHENIMARI P.S. TARABARI, DISTRICT - BARPETA

(ASSAM) VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,

NEW DELHI

2:STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM

HOME DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI - 6

3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER

BARPETA

ASSAM

4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC

ACHYUT PLAZA

BHANGAGARH

GUWAHATI - 781005

5:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BORDER

BHANGAGARH

GUWAHATI 5

6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST BARPETA

7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMAH, Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

ORDER

22.10.2025 (K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.

Barua, learned CGC, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters, Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned Standing Counsel for ECI and Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely Mayuri Begum has assailed an ex parte opinion dated th

14.06.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 7 , Barpeta in Case No. FT-328/19, corresponding to R/ Case No. 12/2005, thereby, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of Post 25.03.1971 Stream as the petitioner remained absent and failed to discharge her burden of proof as provided under Section 9 of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice was not served in accordance with the mandate of Order 3(5)(g) of the Foreigner’s (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters has submitted that the records reveal that after the police enquiry was made, the petitioner had changed the name, address, and therefore, he submits that the impugned opinion does not call for any interference of this Court.

5. On a perusal of the Tribunal’s records, it appears that the petitioner could not be located in the address provided in the notice, which is also reflected in the paragraph-3 of the impugned opinion. As per the process server’s report, on being unable to find the petitioner, the notice was pasted in the notice board of the Gaonburah. There is a certificate dated 27.03.2023, issued by the Gaon Pradhan of Village, Chatta, Charge No. 20, disclosing that no such person resides in Chatta Village.

6. Further more, having regard to the mandate of Order 3(5)(g) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 which requires a copy of the notice to be pasted in conspicuous place of the last residence, same having not been done, is found to vitiate the manner in which notice is served, which also vitiates the ex parte opinion dated 14.06.2023 impugned in this writ petition.

7. Accordingly, the impugned ex parte opinion dated 14.06.2023, passed by th the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 7 , Barpeta in Case No. FT-328/19, corresponding to R/Case No. 12/2005, is hereby set aside.

8. Resultantly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Member, th Foreigners Tribunal, 7 , Barpeta for fresh adjudication of the matter.

9. The petitioner, who is duly represented by her learned counsel, is directed th to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 7 , Barpeta within the time limit of 24.11.2025 and by producing a certified copy of the order, await for further orders/instructions from the said learned Tribunal. On appearance the petitioner shall also file a written statement of defence along with any documents she intends to rely u