Dismissed

MD Mazid Ali v. the Union of India and Othrs

Gauhati HC15 Jul 2025WP(C)/2930/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Foreigners Tribunal declaration of the petitioner as an illegal migrant. The Court held that the petitioner was guilty of unexplained delay and laches, having challenged the 2018 order only in 2025, and emphasized the principle of 'vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt'.

What the court decided

AI extract

MD Mazid Ali Vs the Union of India and Othrs — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010108332025

2025:GAU-AS:9219-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2930/2025

¶6

MD MAZID ALI

¶7

SON OF HAFIJ ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAKHINPAT BALIGAON, P.S. RAHA, DISTRICT- NAGAON, PIN CODE- 782103

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOMEDEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (BORDER) BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI PIN-781005 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM. PIN- 782001 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) NAGAON ASSAM. PIN 782001 6:THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN

¶11

Page No.# 2/9

¶12

ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110001

¶13

7:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B H SHIRIN, MR. S S A RAHMAN,MR. S S S RAHMAN

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 16.07.2025 (K.R. Surana, J)

¶20

Heard Mr. S.S.A. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

¶21

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 30.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6^th , Nagaon in F.T. Case No. NFT (6^th ) 309/08, arising out of Reference IMDT Case No. 200/03, by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant.

¶22

The admitted case of the petitioner is that he had received a

¶23

Page No.# 3/9

¶24

notice from the learned Tribunal to appear on 13.08.2014.

¶25

Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Tribunal on the said date and his prayer for adjournment to file written statement was allowed. The records of the Tribunal reveal that after taking adjournment on 20.09.2014 and 07.11.2014, the petitioner had filed his written statement along with some documents on 16.12.2014. Thereafter, on a prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned on 19.02.2015, 28.04.2015 and 29.06.2015 for the evidence of the petitioner. The case was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon No. 6^th and by order dated 22.12.2015, the matter was adjourned to 04.02.2016 for evidence. Thereafter, on the prayers made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned on 04.02.2016, 03.03.2016, 06.04.2016, 14.06.2016, 09.09.2016, 08.11.2016, 29.12.2016, 14.02.2017, 04.04.2017, 18.05.2017, 12.07.2017, 31.08.2017, 25.10.2017, 13.12.2017, 15.02.2018, 05.04.2018, 02.06.2018 and 29.08.2018 for the evidence of the petitioner. It may be mentioned that as the petitioner was absent without steps, the proceedings was adjourned on 09.05.2016, 08.07.2016, 06.10.2016, 08.11.2016, 02.07.2018, 09.10.2018, 25.10.2018, 29.10.2018 as well as on 31.10.2018.

¶26

Thus, on 31.10.2018, opinion was declared, holding the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. Accordingly, the reference was answered in favour of the State.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was a communication gap between the petitioner and his learned counsel for which the petitioner did not appear before the learned Tribunal and that the

¶28

Page No.# 4/9

¶29

petitioner is illiterate and he did not receive proper legal advice and therefore, could not understand the legal consequences of an uncontested opinion of the learned Tribunal. It was also submitted that Martin Luther Junior once addressed to the American public that injustice anywhere in the world is a threat to justice everywhere. Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner should get one last opportunity to contest the proceedings by tendering evidence in the case. By referring to the statement made paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Moria community whose historical presence in the Country is from 17^th century and as such the petitioner did not file any appeal before the proper forum. It is also submitted that the name of the great-grand father of the petitioner appears in the voter’s list of 1965. The name of his father and grandfather appeared in the voter’s list of 1965 and therefore, the petitioner be granted one opportunity to contest the proceeding.

¶30

It may be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for some time to submit case laws in support of his submissions but no such case laws has been submitted.

¶31

Per contra the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has submitted that under Paragraph 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, a reference is required to be decided by the Foreigners Tribunal within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of reference. However, in this case, the learned Tribunal had showed leniency of more than 4 (four) years in passing an opinion on 31.10.2018, although the reference was registered on 21.07.2014. In support of his submissions that delay defeats equity, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has cited the case of Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley & Ors.,

¶32

Page No.# 5/9

¶33

Civil Appeal No. 5027/2024 [arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30152/2018], decided on 18.04.2024.

¶34

In this case the photocopy of certified copy of the impugned opinion dated 30.10.2018, reveals that the application for certified copy was received by the petitioner on 10.07.2019. Therefore, if not on 30.10.2018, the date of opinion, the petitioner was aware of opinion dated 30.10.2018 on 10.07.2019, the date when certified copy of the order of the Tribunal was received by the petitioner. In the writ petition there is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not assail the opinion dated 30.08.2018 from 10.07.2019 till this writ petition was filed on 20.05.2025. Moreover, there is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the application for certified copy of the opinion was belatedly made on 23.05.2019, i.e., after a lapse of almost 7(seven) months.

¶35

From the various dates on which the proceedings was adjourned it appears that the petitioner had taken 21 (twenty one) adjournments to file his evidence. Moreover, the petitioner remained absent without steps on 9 (nine) dates. Therefore, as per records the petitioner has availed 29 (twenty nine) adjournments to file his evidence and it was 30^th date that opinion of the Tribunal was pronounced.

¶36

Now we deal with one of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Martin Luther King Jr. had once said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown any statutory law or any case law by any Constitutional Courts in United States of America, that even if no evidence is filed by a litigant for more than 4 (four) years, the Courts or Tribunals should

¶37

Page No.# 6/9

¶38

not decide the matter because it may lead to injustice and apply the aforesaid statement as a principle of law that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

¶39

Moreover, the petitioner has not shown any provision of law or any case citation where any Constitutional Courts in the United States of America has refused to follow the Latin legal maxim of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, which translates to "The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights." Thus, the said maxim gives emphasis to the importance of being proactive and vigilant in asserting one’s legal rights.

¶40

On the contrary, upon a search made in the internet, a case discussion was found in the public domain in the internet, which is the judgment passed by Mary Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judge of United States Court of Appeal, Ninth Circuit, in the case of Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corporation, bearing Docket No. 0055781, decided on 28.08.2001. In the said case, the plaintiff had lost the case because of delay in approaching the Court. The judgment starts with two quotations, which are extracted hereinafter:

¶41

The first is – “Equity aids the vigilant” – Anonymous.

¶42

The second is – “We have all the time in the world” (epitaph for Mrs. Bond in For Your Eyes Only.) (Danjaq Productions, 1981).

¶43

Thus, when in the case of Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corporation (supra) the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed for delay in approaching the Court, it is clear that the statement by Martin Luther King Jr., referred above, is not a law followed in United States of America in cases where the delay in approaching the Court is not properly explained.

¶44

Page No.# 7/9

¶45

The Court takes note of the fact that the principles contained in the legal maxim of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt is applied in an appropriate case by the Constitutional Courts in India. If one requires an authority on the point, the decision of this Court in the case of State of Assam v. Ramesh Dihingia, Review Petition No. 47 of 2018, decided on 08.05.2023, reported in (2023) 0 Supreme(Gau) 555, may be referred to. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. v. Ved Prakash, 2024 INSC 891: (2020) 0 Supreme(SC) 1101, may also be referred to.

¶46

Therefore, the reference by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the purported statement made by Martin Luther King Jr. appears to be a mere outof-cuff submission, which is not based on any authentic, reliable and acceptable legal material. Thus, the said part of submissions is a gross wastage of the time of the Court and therefore, strongly deprecated.

¶47

Under the circumstances it is found that the petitioner was granted adjournments more than what is prescribed under paragraph no. 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Moreover, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after a lapse of about 6 (six) years and 5 (five) months and the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner is not satisfactorily pleaded or explained. Under such circumstances, the principle “delay defeats equity” as referred to in the case of Mrinmoy Maity (supra), is found to be squarely applicable in this case. The petitioner is found to have accepted the impugned opinion for more than 6 (six) years. Therefore, the un-explained delay and latches in assailing the impugned opinion dated 30.10.2018 by filing this writ

¶48

Page No.# 8/9

¶49

petition on 20.05.2025, disentitles the petitioner to a relief.

¶50

Moreover, in the case of Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 623, this Court has held as follows:

¶51

“15. It is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has been in public domain in the State of Assam and has engaged the attention of the people. Interest of the State is of paramount importance in that unabated influx has the potential to affect the integrity and sovereignty of the Country. Citizenship of a person, no doubt, is a very valuable right and should be zealously guarded. There is no gainsaying the fact that a person who is alleged to be a foreigner must be given due and reasonable opportunity to establish that he is a citizen of India. However, if a person does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own risk and peril as grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. Right to a fair hearing or principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to a farcical situation and to be an engine to defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners.”

¶52

Therefore, in this case the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the consequences of not filing his evidence in proceeding whereas citizenship is being questioned cannot be accepted. Accordingly, in this writ petition is found to devoid of any merit on the ground of unexplained delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion dated 30.08.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6^th , Nagaon in F.T. Case No. NFT (6^th ) 309/08, arising out of Reference IMDT Case No. 200/03. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶53

The consequences of the said opinion dated 30.08.2018, shall follow.

¶54

Page No.# 9/9

¶55

The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s records expeditiously together with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record.

¶56

JUDGE JUDGE

¶57

Comparing Assistant

MD Mazid Ali v. the Union of India and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

MD Mazid Ali v. the Union of India and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Subur Vs Union of India and 9 Ors.

Morjina Begum @ Marjina Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Tupe Subhash Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Bakkar Ali Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Kamardeen Oaladeji Oladimeji Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Asma Khatun Vs the Commissioner and Secretary and 3 Ors.