##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010205482019

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/6393/2019

FAKRUL ISLAM @ FAKRUL ALI

S/O- LATE HASEN ALI, R/O- VILL- ROUMARI, ITAPARA, P.S AND DIST-

NAGAON, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF HOME

AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 01

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM

HOME DEPTT

DISPUR

GHY- 6

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JORHAT

P.O AND DIST- JORHAT

ASSAM

PIN-

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)

JORHAT

P.O AND DIST- JORHAT

ASSAM

PIN-

5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

NEW DELHI TO BE REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

NEW DELHI- 01

Page No.# 2/4

6:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC

BHANGAGARH

LACHIT NAGAR

GUWAAHATI- 0

Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B AHMED, MR. N HOQUE,MR. M HUSSAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

ORDER

11.05.2026

Heard Shri N. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A.

Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Deptt., Shri G. Sarma, learned Standing

Counsel, NRC, Shri N. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, Shri P. Sharma,

learned State Counsel and Shri S.S. Roy, learned CGC.

2. The instant application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India challenging an opinion dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Foreigners

Tribunal, Jorhat in Case No. JFT 121/2009 whereby the petitioner has been

declared as a foreigner post-1971.

3. The primary ground of challenge is that the opinion is an ex-parte one

which has been rendered without giving a proper opportunity to the petitioner

to defend himself.

4. Shri Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at no

point of time the notice was served upon him. He has also submitted that the

records would reveal that there is a report of the Jarikarak, who had observed

Page No.# 3/4

that the petitioner had left the place many years back in search of work and

therefore, the notice was affixed on the wall of the Municipal Office. He has

submitted that such service cannot be deemed to be a proper service under the

law holding the field.

5. Ms. Verma, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that without even

going to the legality or otherwise on the aspect of how a notice is to be served,

the petitioner was under of duty to inform the fact to the jurisdictional police

station regarding his change of address which was not done.

6. Without going to the aforesaid aspect regarding the duty cast upon a

proceedee to inform any shift of address, we are of the view that interest of

justice would be served if the matter is remanded to the concerned Tribunal for

adjudication of the matter in accordance with law. We also make it clear that

the aspect of service of notice cannot be taken up any further since this order is

passed in presence of the learned counsel of the petitioner.

7. The matter is accordingly remanded to the Tribunal directing the petitioner

to appear on or before 25.05.2026 along with the written statement and the

evidence of all the witnesses which the petitioner would like to produce. On

such presentation, the learned Tribunal would take charge and would complete

the adjudication expeditiously and in accordance with law by following Order

3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

8. The interim order passed by this Court on 04.12.2019 would be operative

till the adjudication of the Reference by the concerned Tribunal.

9. Records be sent back forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.

Page No.# 4/4

10. We also make it clear that since the opinion is in respect of many cases,

the present order is confined only in the case of the Reference against the

petitioner.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant