WP(C)/3740/2026 of MUSSTT FUZULI BIBI ALIAS FAJALI BIBI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 19 July 2026

ORDER

Date : 20.07.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mrs. R.B. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated 06.12.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1, Bongaigaon, in Case No. BNGN/FT/ 1660/08, arising out of Ref. IM(D)T Case No/138/04, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post

25.03.1971 stream.

3. The learned Standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has opposed the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in assailing the said opinion.

4. On a perusal of the Tribunal records, it is seen that the notice was stated to have been served in a substituted manner.

5. The learned Tribunal had recorded that the notice was served upon the opposite party i.e the petitioner herein, by hanging a copy at the fair price shop situated nearby the house of the opposite party, treating the said shop as a conspicuous part of the opposite party's residence. However, during the evidence, PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically stated that upon finding the opposite party absent at the given address, they hung the second copy of the notice at a fair price shop located at the address/village of the opposite party. Thus, the witnesses have not stated that the fair price shop was situated near the house of the opposite party or that it constituted a conspicuous part of the opposite party's residence. Therefore, the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 is contradictory to the finding recorded in the opinion regarding the manner and place of service of notice.

6. Accordingly, the provision of Order 3 (5) (f) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 was not duly followed. The said provision requires notice to be affixed at the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the proceedee ordinarily resides or last resided. Therefore, the delay in preferring the impugned opinion would not be fatal. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned ex parte opinion dated 06.12.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1, Bongaigaon, in Case No.

BNGN/FT/ 1660/08.

7. The matter is remanded back to the said learned Tribunal for a fresh decision. The petitioner, who is duly represented by his learned counsel shall enter appearance before the said learned Tribunal within the outer limit of 24.08.2026. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not enter appearance within the time allowed, it would be open to the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent in the proceeding and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

8. The learned counsel shall produce a certified copy of this order as well as file his written statement of defence and file documents in support of his defence. The learned Tribunal shall thereafter make an endeavour to dispose of the reference in the time prescribed under Order 3 (14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

9. The Registry shall send back the records expeditiously.

10. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant