WP(C)/1068/2026 of MUSTT MOLIKA KHATOON ALIAS MALLIKA BEGUM Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS on 20 May 2026

ORDER

21.05.2026 (S.K. Medhi, J)]

The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging inter alia an opinion dated 29.03.2010 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Golaghat in FTG/484/2007 arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 52/04, whereby the petitioner has been declared a foreigner post-1971.

2. The primary ground of challenge is that the order has been passed ex-parte and the petitioner was not aware of the same.

3. We have heard Shri S.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department & NRC, Shri P. Sarma, learned State Counsel, Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, ECI and Shri A.K. Dutta, learned CGC.

4. Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at no point of time any notice was received by the petitioner and there was no change of any residential address. It is also contended that the petitioner is working as a Grade- IV in the Sarupathar PHC and therefore, there was no question of evading service of notice. He has submitted that though the opinion is of the year 2010, all this time, there was no information regarding the same and only on her arrest on 25.05.2025 that she came to know about the impugned order and thereafter, presented the instant writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings in paragraph 5 of the writ petition to contend that the notices were never received by the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Verma, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the contention of the petitioner prima facie does not appear to be correct. She has submitted that the records which were requisitioned by this Court would reveal that the notice was received by the petitioner herself by putting thumb impression. She has also submitted that though the petitioner has claimed to be a government servant, such engagement appears to be temporarily in nature.

7. The primary ground of challenge as indicated above is non-receipt of notice. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have denied the said ground and have also relied upon the records of the Tribunal which contains a report that the notice was served and there is also an acknowledgement of receipt by the petitioner by putting her thumb impression. Without going into the issue whether the notice was received by the petitioner or not, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is given a chance to defend herself in the proceedings. Accordingly, the ex-parte judgment dated 29.03.2010, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Golaghat in FTG/484/2007 arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 52/04 is set aside.

8. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal on or before 15.06.2026 along with her written statement and the evidence-in-chief of all the witnesses along with the documents. On such approach, the learned Tribunal shall take charge and complete the proceedings in accordance with law, more particularly, in terms of Order 3(14) of Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964.

9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2025. To facilitate the petitioner an effective opportunity to defend herself, we deem it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. This Court accordingly grants bail to the petitioner, namely Mustt. Molika Khatoon @ Mallika Begum, subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Golaghat. Further, it is directed that the biometrics of the iris of both eyes, the fingerprints of both hands and the photographs of the petitioner shall be obtained, whereafter, she shall be allowed to remain on bail, which shall be subject to the outcome of the present Reference.

11. The Superintendent of Police (Border), Golaghat, shall also obtain necessary information and documentation as required under the Rules from the petitioner for securing her presence.

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

13. We however make it clear that if the petitioner fails to appear and file the necessary requirements as indicated above within the date specified, the ex-parte judgment dated 29.03.2010 would revive.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant