GAHC010287712025

2026:GAU-AS:2507-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/427/2026 SMTI SARIFA @ SWARIFA KHATUN W/O AMJAT ALI, D/O MUNSUR ALI, R/O-VILL-SANDAHKHAITI, P.S.-

MAYONG, DIST.-MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

3:THAT ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001.

4:THE OFFICE OF THE STATE CO ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS (NRC)

ASSAM BHANGAGARH DIST KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM GUWAHATI-781005

5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105

6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)

MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782105

7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE MAYONG DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78241 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K PURKAYASTHA, MS M DAS,MS A HUSSAIN,MR. S SHARMA,MR. S MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

ORDER

16.02.2026 Date :

(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. A.K. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for respondent no.3; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.5.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated

st

18.07.2009, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1 ), Morigaon,

Assam, in Case No. F.T.(D) 451/2006, arising out of Police Ref. Case No.

3145/97 dated 12.04.1997, thereby declaring the petitioner, namely, Sarifa @ Swarifa Khatun to be a foreigner under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 3. It may be stated that the impugned opinion was passed in common with Case No. F.T.(D) 133/2006- State of Assam v. Smt. Basanti Mandal, arising out of Police Ref. Case No. 4096/98 dated 12.01.1998. But that part of the opinion which relates to F.T.(D) 133/2006, is not under challenge in this writ petition.

4. This writ petition, to assail the opinion dated 18.07.2009, was filed on 19.12.2025, i.e. after 16 years, 5 months, 1 day (or 5998 days). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to address the Court on the inordinate delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to explain the delay in assailing the opinion dated 18.07.2009, by filing this writ petition on 19.12.2025, has submitted that the notice of the proceeding was never served on the petitioner. It was submitted that as per the impugned opinion, one counsel, namely, Md. Mafidul Islam had appeared in the case and by filing petition no. 358 dated 09.01.2007, prayed for time to file written statement. The learned Tribunal has also recorded that the vakalatnama was not signed by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that though the State had examined witnesses, but the Gaonburah, in whose presence the notice was shown to be served on the petitioner, was not examined. It has been submitted that the process server has purportedly served notice upon the petitioner on 11.12.2006, and shown as if upon service of notice, the petitioner had put her right-hand thumb impression and thereafter, the notice was shown to have been served on the petitioner in the presence of the Govt. Gaonburah. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court may call for the records and send the said right-hand thumb impression appearing in the process server’s report for forensic examination, if the petitioner’s statement is not believed.

6. Moreover, it has been submitted that the Local Verification Officer (LVO for short) repo