Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1042/2026 of MD ABDUL LATIF Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS on 19 July 2026
GAHC010014582026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1042/2026 MD ABDUL LATIF SON OF LATE ABDUL KADIR @ ABDUL KADER SEIKH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PACHIM MATIA, POLICE STATION- MATIA, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE
GAHC010014582026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1042/2026
MD ABDUL LATIF
SON OF LATE ABDUL KADIR @ ABDUL KADER SEIKH, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE- PACHIM MATIA, POLICE STATION- MATIA, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED SECRETARY BY THE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION
NIRVACHAN SADAN
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110001
4:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS
ASSAM 1ST FLOOR
ACHYUT PLAZA
G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781005
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
GOALPARA POST OFFICE- GOALPARA
DISTRICT- GOALPARA
ASSAM PIN- 783121
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)
GOALPARA
POST OFFICE- GOALPARA
DISTRICT- GOALPARA
ASSAM PIN- 783121
7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF MATIA POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE- MATIA
DISTRICT- GOALPARA
ASSAM PIN- 78312
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GHOSH, MR A.K. HAJONG,MR. S. K. CHAKMA,MR I
CHAKMA
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 20.07.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7. Ms. S. Kataki, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of a fresh proceeding in F.T. Case No. FT(5)1402/MA/25 of 2025 (Corresponding to Reference No. GLP/B/42/200/274 dated 10.01.2025) before the Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara, whereby the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 06.10.2025, has directed the petitioner to submit his written statement.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was an earlier proceeding initiated against the petitioner being F.T. Kamrup (M) (D.V) 1st Case No. 972/2018 (Police Reference Case No. 1186/2000) before the Foreigner’s Tribunal
No. 1, Kamrup (Metro-1), wherein the petitioner, vide Opinion dated 12/07/2023, has been declared not to be a foreigner. As such, the initiation of a similar proceeding on the same issue before the Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara was illegal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent proceeding before the learned Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara, is not maintainable, in view of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Swapan Dutta vs. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No. 6799/2025, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29626/2018), where it has been held that when a decision has been taken by the Foreigner’s Tribunal in an earlier proceeding, a subsequent proceeding on the same issue cannot be taken up again.
5. Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7 submits that there is no quarrel with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Swapan Dutta (Supra). However, the only thing that has to be clarified in the proceeding against the petitioner before the Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara, is whether the petitioner is the same person, whose case was decided before the Foreigner’s Tribunal-1st, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, relating to F.T. Kamrup (M) (D.V) 1st Case No. 972/2018 (Police Case No. 1186/2000).
6. In the case of Swapan Dutta (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that when a proceeding before a Foreigner’s Tribunal culminates in a reasoned opinion, after notice is issued to the proceedee and determination has been made that the proceedee is not a foreigner, only two consequences follow. Firstly, the opinion binds both the parties unless and until it is displaced in the manner the law prescribes, namely, by a challenge by way of a writ petition or by a recall on recognised grounds. It held that permitting serial references would defeat the very purpose of finality in adjudication and security concerns could not justify ignoring a binding pronouncement of a competent Foreigner’s Tribunal. It thus held that a second reference against the proceedee can only be proceeded, if the first opinion is first displaced in a writ petition or recalled on permissible grounds.
7. In the present case, the petitioner's case is that the Foreigner’s Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro-1), in F.T. Kamrup (M) (D.V) 1st case No. 972/2018, declared the petitioner not to be a foreigner. As such, the second proceeding before the Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara was impermissible, as the earlier declaration had not been interfered with.
8. We are in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the first proceeding has ended with a declaration that the petitioner was not a foreigner, a second proceeding could not be initiated against him on the same issue. However, the question whether the present petitioner is the same person whose case was decided by the Foreigner’s Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro-1) and who is now being proceeded against in Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 5 in F.T.(5)1402/MA/25 of 2025 pending before the F.T. No. 5, Goalpara has to be decided. As the said factual issue has to be decided, the petitioner would have to prove that his case has been decided earlier in F.T. Kamrup (M) (D.V) 1st Case No. 972/2018 and that he is the same person whose case had been decided earlier. The above question of fact would have to be decided by the concerned Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara.
9. In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the F.T.-5, Goalpara to decide the above-said issue first.
10. Send back the TCRs.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant