WP(C)/3491/2026 of SURMAN ALI ALIAS SURMAN ALI SHEIKH Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS on 4 August 2026

ORDER

05.08.2026 The issue in both these writ petitions being similar on the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties the same are taken up for an analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common order. The facts in brief is that the petitioners in the respective cases were marked as “D” in the voters list of 2017 pertaining to 39 Jaleswar LAC in village Kharmuja in the district of Goalpara. It is however the case of the petitioners that though there is a reference to an FT case, in spite of due diligence, no such case could be found in the concerned Foreigners Tribunal. It is contended that in absence of the Reference, prejudice was being suffered by the petitioners by marking of “D” against his name. I have heard Shri M. H. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home and NRC Department; Shri A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India; Shri R. Talukdar, learned State Counsel. Notice was issued in these cases on 26.06.2026 pursuant to which, Shri Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions. As per the said written instructions dated 04.08.2026, the case records have not been able to be traced out either in the office of the concerned Superintendent of Police (Border) or in the concerned Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that since, as a matter of fact “D” was prefixed to the name of the petitioners, a new Reference can be initiated which can be brought to a logical conclusion by the concerned Tribunal. Both Shri Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India and Shri R. Talukdar, the learned State Counsel have endorsed the submission and suggestion of Shri Payeng, the learned Standing Counsel. Shri M. H. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though on principle, he would not oppose to the aforesaid suggestion, he is apprehensive of the fact that if subsequently, the papers of the original Reference are found, the same may cause prejudice as the petitioners would have to face two proceedings. After considering the facts and circumstances, the course of action suggested by the learned Standing Counsel appears to be reasonable. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of by directing the concerned Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara to initiate a fresh Reference to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal which would act in accordance with law and conclude the proceeding. It is however made clear that in the event the documents of the earlier Reference are found out, the same are not required to be proceeded again as the present Reference which has been directed to be made would cover the case of the petitioners. Both the writ petitions are accordingly stand disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant