Dismissed

Musstt Nazima Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Oct 2025WP(C)/5889/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 challenged a Foreigners Tribunal opinion declaring the petitioner a foreigner of post-1971 stream. She had failed to file evidence despite over 75 days' time and no adjournment petition, and assailed the opinion only after seven years. The Court held there was wilful default and dismissed the petition at the motion stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Musstt Nazima Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010202102025

2025:GAU-

AS:13784-DB

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

¶6

Case No. : WP(C)/5889/2025

¶7

MUSSTT NAZIMA BEGUM D/O MD. ABDUL MALEK W/O NOOR HUSSAIN TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT VILL- KASALPATTY WARD NO. 3, P.O. GOLAGHAT, P.S. GOLAGHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM PIN- 785621 PERMANENT ADDRESS AT VILL- GARIABORI PATHAR, P.O. LOCHANABORI P.S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM PIN-782126.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶12

3:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

¶13

Page No.# 2/7

¶14

JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER)

¶15

JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001. 5:THE ELECTION COMMISISON OF INDIA

¶16

NEW DELHI PIN-110001.

¶17

6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR

¶18

NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM PIN-78100

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A A DEWAN, MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM,MR H A RASHID Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, F.T,SC, NRC

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 15.10.2025 ( K.R Surana, J)

¶23

Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC; Mr. G.Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Ms. P. Baruah, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶24

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Musstt. Nazima Begum has assailed the opinion dated 13.08.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No.

¶25

Page No.# 3/7

¶26

FTG/898/2011, corresponding to S.P.’s Enquiry No. 315/2008, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the petitioner had filed her written statement but could not file her evidence-onaffidavit and to exhibit the documents. Accordingly, by referring to the statements made in paragraph 27 of the writ petition, it is submitted that though the evidence was not filed, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the case on merit and therefore, as the Tribunal had decided the matter without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to tender evidence, the impugned opinion is not sustainable.

¶28

It is further submitted that the petitioner comes from the poor strata of the society and therefore, the opinion dated 13.08.2018 could not be assailed on time. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the petitioner is a poor lady who is dependent on labour works for her sustenance, she be permitted to contest the proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been shifting from one place to another and therefore, all the relevant certified copies of the documents on which the petitioner intended to rely upon could not be collected on time, for which her evidence could not be submitted then.

¶29

Per contra, the learned standing counsel for FT matters made his submission to sustain the impugned opinion dated 13.08.2018.

¶30

It would be appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned opinion dated 13.08.2018, which is extracted herein below:

¶31

Page No.# 4/7

¶32

“3. It appears from the record that the notice in the reference proceeding was served upon the said opposite party (for short "O.P."). However, inspite of the completion of the service of the said notice which was served under 3 (5) (b) of the F (T) Order 1964 yet, the said O.P. failed to appear on the 1" date fixed in the case 1.,e., 28-5-2018 fixing the case again on 116-2018. On 11-6-2018 the said O.P. had appeared but she could not filed her Written Statement on the said date and accordingly, it was refixed on 21-06-2018 on which date the said O.P. has filed her Written Statement (for short "W/S") supported by the xerox copies of some documents, claiming thereby that she is a citizen of India by birth and not a foreigner as alleged by the State.

¶33

The case was thereafter fixed on 03-07-2018,19-7-2018, and 04-8-2018 on which dates on the prayer of the said O.P. the case has been fixed for filing of her Evidence on 01-8-2018. However on 04-8-2018 the said opposite party has been granted a last chance for her Evidence fixing the case today i.e., 13-8-2018. Till now, the said O.P. has neither filed her Evidence nor any application or petition, showing the reason as to why the Evidence of the said O.P. could not be filed even today.”

¶34

As per the procedure prescribed under Order 3 (14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the Foreigners Tribunal are mandated to dispose of the reference case within a period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the reference from the competent authority. Moreover, as per Order 3 (8) of the said Order, the Foreigners Tribunal are required to give the procedee 10 days’ time to give reply to the show cause notice and further 10 days’ time to produce evidence in support of his/ her case. In this case, as per the opinion, more than 75 days time was allowed to the petitioner but no evidence was filed and on 13.08.2018 neither any evidence nor any petition was filed to show reason as to why evidence could not be filed.

¶35

The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Tribunal not to have disposed the case on merit. It was submitted that his submission is

¶36

Page No.# 5/7

¶37

based on the law prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the aid of Civil Procedure Code to make his submission, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 4 of Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that where the summons have been issued for final disposal of the suit and either party fails without sufficient cause to adduce evidence on which he relies, the court may at once pronounce judgment. Therefore, in view of the mandate of the law under Order 3 (14) read with Order 3 (8) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, procedure adapted by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with.

¶38

Even assuming that for some good reason, the petitioner could not file her evidence on the date fixed, but in this case, the petitioner had also defaulted in filing any adjournment petition before the learned Tribunal on 13.08.2018, which is reflected in paragraph-4 of the impugned opinion, which is quoted hereinbefore.

¶39

In this case, the petitioner has not availed the benefit of Order 3-C of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which prescribes the procedure for setting aside an ex parte opinion which was passed due to non-appearance of the procedee before the learned Tribunal. However, the time within which such application should be filed is prescribed as 30 days from the date of the order. However, the present writ petition assailing the said opinion has been filed on 03.09.2025, which is after lapse of more than 7 years from the date of the opinion.

¶40

In view of the willful default on the part of the petitioner to file her evidence and the inordinate delay in assailing the said impunged opinion dated 13.08.2018, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner comes from the poor strata of society and engaged works would not

¶41

Page No.# 6/7

¶42

be a sufficient cause for entertaining a belated challenge to the opinion dated 13.08.2018 after a lapse of 7 (seven) years from the date of the opinion.

¶43

If the opinion is interfered with after lapse of about 7 years, it could frustrate the very purpose of prescription of Order 3 (14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. In this connection, the Court is of the considered opinion that as the State has doubted the citizenship of the petitioner, it was her responsibility to adhere to the time schedule given in the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Accordingly, this Court is not persuaded to take a lenient view of the wilful and deliberate default on the part of the petitioner to file the evidence within the time allowed by the learned Tribunal.

¶44

In this case, if the impugned opinion is interfered with, in this belated challenge, it would amount to giving the imprimatur of the Court on the wilful and deliberate default on the part of the petitioner to appear before the learned Tribunal on 13.08.2018, which was the date fixed for filing of the evidence, but the petitioner never appeared before the said learned Tribunal for filing her evidence. There is no explanation in the writ petition with regard to the default on the part of the petitioner to appear and take steps before the learned Tribunal on 13.08.2018 or to pray for an adjournment.

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents.

¶46

The Registry will transmit a copy of this order to the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat so as to make it a part of record of Case no. FTG/898/2011 for future reference.

¶47

JUDGE JUDGE

¶48

Page No.# 7/7

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Musstt Nazima Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Musstt Nazima Begum v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabin Chandra Rabha and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ambia Khatun Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Madhu Mala Bibi Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Amir Uddin Mazumder Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Saha Ali Akand @ Shaha Ali Akand Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Saha Ali Akand @ Shaha Ali Akand Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.