WP(C)/8527/2019 of JOHORI BISWAS AND 5 ORS. Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. on 16 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 17.08.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mrs. P. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H. Das, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon, in Case No. 738/2010, arising out of Ref. IM(D)T Case No. 284/2001, by which the petitioners were declared as illegal migrants of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3. The case of the petitioner no.1 is that he along with his family is residing in the premises given in the address since 1986. Accordingly, it is projected that the process server never visited the place of residence of the petitioners and notice was served by hanging and the learned Tribunal had accepted the same as due service of notice and accordingly, the ex parte opinion was passed.

4. On perusal of the Tribunal’s record, which was called for, it is seen that the notice was issued to the petitioners at the address of village- Nakhulagrant, P.S.- Jagiroad, Dist.- Morigaon, Assam, which is the address of the petitioners in the cause title of this writ petition and as per the process server’s report, the petitioner was not found when the process server went to the place of residence and the notice was served by hanging in the presence of witnesses, which included Gaonburah of the Jagiroad Revenue Town.

5. In view of the projection that the petitioners are available at the same address to which notice was issued and served, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners be provided an opportunity to contest the proceedings.

6. In view of the fact that the enquiry was conducted only against the one Joyhori Biswas, but it appears from the Tribunal’s record that the notice was issued against all the petitioners, but there was no enquiry against the petitioner nos.2 to 6. It may be stated that though the proceeding before the learned Tribunal was against Sri Joyhori Biswas, but in the cause title of this writ petition, the name of the petitioner is Johori Biswas.

7. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to order as follows:

I. The impugned ex parte opinion dated 05.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon, in Case No. 738/2010 is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the learned said learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the proceedings by filing their written statement.

II. The petitioners, who are represented by their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon, on or before 24.09.2026 and on the same date, along with the certified copy of this order shall also file their written statement with documents of defence and the documents on which they intend to rely upon.

8. Thereupon, the learned Tribunal shall provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to file their evidence-on-affidavit and take steps for examination of their witnesses.

9. The learned Tribunal shall make an effort to dispose of the proceedings in terms of paragraph 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964.

10. In the event the petitioners fail to appear before the said learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to pass such appropriate orders as may be permitted in accordance with law by treating the petitioners as absent on call.

11. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

12. The Registry shall send back the records expeditiously.

13. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant