Srimot Das and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/15

¶2

GAHC010143812019

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:3674

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4718/2019

¶6

SRIMOT DAS AND 3 ORS.

¶7

S/O. LT. RAMLAL DAS, R/O. VILLAGE- KURKURI PT. III, P.S. KATIGORAH (SOUTH BEHERA P.P.), P.O. KALAIN, DIST.- CACHAR, (ASSAM), PIN- 788815.

¶8

2: SMTI. PRATIBHA BALA DAS @ PRATIBA BALA DAS W/O. SRIMOT DAS R/O. VILLAGE- KURKURI PT. III P.S. KATIGORAH (SOUTH BEHERA P.P.) P.O. KALAIN DIST.- CACHAR (ASSAM) PIN- 788815.

¶9

3: MOHANLAL DAS S/O. SRIMOT DAS R/O. VILLAGE- KURKURI PT. III P.S. KATIGORAH (SOUTH BEHERA P.P.) P.O. KALAIN DIST.- CACHAR (ASSAM) PIN- 788815.

¶10

4: SMTI. NAYANTARA DAS D/O. SRIMOT DAS R/O. BHAIRABPUR PT. III P.S. KATIGORAH (SOUTH BEHERA P.P.) P.O. KALAIN DIST.- CACHAR (ASSAM) PIN- 788815 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.

¶11

Page No.# 2/15

¶12

THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001.

¶13

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 781006. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR DISTRICT P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR (ASSAM) PIN- 788001. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) CACHAR DIST. P.O. P.S. SILCHAR (ASSAM) PIN- 788001. 5:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE KATIGORAH POLICE STATION P.O. KALAIN DIST. CACHAR PIN- 788815

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G P BHOWMIK, MR. T A CHOUDHURY,MR. A Y CHOUDHURY,MRS. M HORE

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

¶18

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶19

Date : 13.03.2026

¶20

(Kalyan Rai Surana, J)

¶21

Heard Mr. T. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned CGC for the respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma,

¶22

Page No.# 3/15

¶23

learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters for respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3 and 8; and Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned standing counsel for respondent no.7.

¶24

There are four petitioners in this writ petition, namely, (1) Sri Srimot Das, (2) Smt. Pratibha Bala Das @ Pratiba Bala Das, (3) Sri Mohanlal Das, and (4) Smt. Nayantara Das. The petitioner no.2 is the wife and the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are the son and daughter of Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no.1).

¶25

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the following two opinions:-

¶26

a. Ex parte opinion dated 21.10.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 4^th , Cachar at Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015, which was rendered in a reference made against Smt. Pratibha Bala Das @ Pratiba Bala Das (petitioner no. 2), by which the said petitioner was declared to be a foreigner; and

¶27

b. Ex parte opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 4^th , Cachar at Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015, which was a reference made against the Sri Srimot Das, (petitioner no. 1). However, notice of proceedings was issued against all the four petitioners and all the four petitioners were declared to be foreigners post 25.03.1971.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though notice was issued to the petitioner no.2 in Case No. FT4th/92/2015, but

¶29

Page No.# 4/15

¶30

in Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015, a common notice was issued to all the petitioners. Accordingly, it was submitted that the notices were not valid as they were not separately issued to all the respondents.

¶31

It was also submitted that the petitioners had no knowledge of the said two ex parte opinions and came to know about it only during the hearing of the National Register of Citizen (NRC). Thereafter, the petitioners had obtained the certified copies of the ex parte opinions on 07.05.2019 and accordingly, a common writ petition was filed to assail the said two ex parte opinions.

¶32

It was further submitted that Sri Srimot Das, petitioner no. 1 was issued a citizenship certificate dated 15.02.1971 by the Special Officer for Registration of Citizens, Silchar. It was also submitted that the name of Smt. Pratiba Bala Das, petitioner no. 2 was entered in the “admission register of new migrants”, showing her Camp Roll number for the period from 01.10.1964 to 24.10.1964 as Sl. No. 1347. Accordingly, it has been submitted that as the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were registered as citizens, one opportunity may be given to the petitioners to contest the proceedings by filing their written statement and evidence.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for the FT matters has opposed the prayer and has made his submissions in support of the impugned ex parte opinions. It was submitted that the notice was duly received by Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no.1) and therefore, the notice was duly served in accordance with Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Accordingly, it was submitted that no interference is warranted against the impugned ex parte opinions.

¶34

Page No.# 5/15

¶35

Perused the materials available in the writ petition. Also perused the records received from the Tribunal and also considered the submissions made at the Bar.

¶36

On a perusal of the Tribunal’s records, it is seen as follows:-

¶37

a. Case record of Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015:

¶38

i. It is seen that the notice issued to Smt. Pratiba Bala Das (petitioner no.2) on 26.07.2016, containing date of appearance on 09.09.2016, was duly served on Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no. 1) on 13.08.2016.

¶39

ii. On 09.09.2016, 31.10.2016 and 28.12.2016, a learned counsel, namely, Subir Chandra Das, had filed an adjournment petition before the learned Tribunal, stating therein that he has received instructions over mobile phone that the petitioners above named are unable to appear before the learned Tribunal. However, his vakalatnama is not found in the record.

¶40

iii. On 08.12.2016, an adjournment petition was filed by another counsel, stating that the engaged counsel could not appear before the learned Tribunal.

¶41

iv. On 24.01.2017, the petitioner no.1, through the same learned counsel, filed an adjournment petition, stating that due to illness, his wife, the petitioner no.2, could not appear before the learned Tribunal. On similar ground of illness, the learned counsel for the petitioner no.1 again filed petition for adjournment on 01.06.2017.

¶42

Page No.# 6/15

¶43

v. Thus, after the first appearance on behalf of the petitioner no.1 on 09.09.2016, the case was adjourned on 09.09.2016, 31.10.2016, 08.12.16, 28.12.16, 24.01.17, 10.03.17, 01.06.17, 25.08.17 and 22.09.17. Thereafter, ex parte opinion was passed in connection with Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015 on 21.10.2017.

¶44

b. Case record of Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015:

¶45

i. It is seen that the notice issued to all the petitioners on 22.07.2016, containing date of appearance on 24.08.2016, was duly served on Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no. 1) on 13.08.2016. However, the petitioners did not appear or take any steps on 24.08.2016.

¶46

ii. On 08.12.2016, an adjournment petition was filed by a learned counsel, stating that Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no.1) could not appear before the learned Tribunal due to some urgent matter.

¶47

iii. On 28.12.2016, a learned counsel, namely, Subir Chandra Das, had filed an adjournment petition before the learned Tribunal, stating that he received instructions over mobile phone that the petitioners above named are unable to appear before the learned Tribunal.

¶48

iv. On 24.01.2017, the learned counsel, namely, Subir Chandra Das, had filed his vakalatnama and also filed an adjournment petition before the learned Tribunal, stating that he has not received instructions and therefore, written statement could not be filed.

¶49

v. On 02.06.2017, an adjournment petition was filed by the learned counsel, stating that Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no.1) could

¶50

Page No.# 7/15

¶51

not appear before the learned Tribunal as he is engaged in marriage of a relative.

¶52

vi. Thus, notice was returned after service on 24.08.2017, but the petitioner did not appear on the said date.

¶53

vii. After the first appearance of the petitioner on 08.12.16, they took adjournments on 08.12.16, 28.12.16, 24.01.17, 02.06.17, 24.08.2017, 28.10.2017, 06.12.2017 and 07.03.2018. But, the petitioner remained absent without steps on 10.03.2017.

¶54

viii. Accordingly, ex parte opinion was passed in Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015 on 07.03.2018.

¶55

The Tribunal’s records further disclose as under:-

¶56

a. Against the said ex parte opinion dated 21.10.2017, passed in connection with Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015, the petitioner no.2, namely, Smti. Pratiba Bala Das, had filed an application under Order 3-A of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 for setting aside the ex parte opinion dated 21.10.2017.

¶57

b. The said application was accompanied with a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing Misc. Case No. 37/2018. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 37/2018.

¶58

c. In connection with the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 37/2018, which was filed on 18.06.2018, by an order dated 18.06.2018, the case was fixed on 04.09.2018 for admission hearing.

¶59

Page No.# 8/15

¶60

d. By order dated 04.09.2018, passed in Misc. Case No. 37/2018, the petitioner no. 2 was granted bail of Rs.10,000/-and the matter was fixed on 22.10.2018. The petitioner no.2 appeared before the learned Tribunal on 22.10.2018. However, though attendance was filed on 28.11.2018, no one appeared for the hearing.

¶61

e. The petitioner remained absent without steps on 10.01.2019 and 01.03.2019. Consequently, Misc. Case No. 37/2018 was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2019.

¶62

f. For setting aside the said ex parte opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed in connection with Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015, the petitioner no.1, namely, Sri Srimot Das, had filed an application under Order 3-A of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 for setting aside the ex parte opinion dated 07.03.2018.

¶63

g. The said application was accompanied with a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 3-A of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 40/2018.

¶64

h. Both the aforesaid applications appear to have been registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 40/2018.

¶65

i. In connection with the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 40/2018, which was filed on 18.06.2018, by an order dated 18.06.2018, the case was fixed on 05.09.2018 for admission hearing.

¶66

j. By order dated 05.09.2018, passed in Misc. Case No. 40/2018, the

¶67

Page No.# 9/15

¶68

petitioner no. 1 was granted bail of Rs.10,000/-, and the matter was fixed on 22.10.2018. The petitioner no.1 appeared before the learned Tribunal on 22.10.2018.

¶69

k. Though attendance was filed on 28.11.2018, no one appeared for the hearing.

¶70

l. The petitioner no.1 remained absent on 10.01.2019 and 01.03.2019. Therefore, by order dated 01.03.2019, the said Misc. Case No. 40/2018 was dismissed.

¶71

It may be stated that upon requisition being made, the Tribunal’s records had reached this Court and its receipt was entered in the office notesheet dated 03.10.2019. It is surprising that all this time, the learned counsel for the petitioner had no time to peruse the Tribunal’s records. Even today, when the matter was being heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not peruse the records. However, after order was dictated till this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has suddenly submitted that he was not aware about the filing of the said (i) Misc. Case No. 37/2018, and (ii) Misc. Case No. 40/2018 and accordingly, he has prayed for an adjournment to file an additional affidavit. The said prayer was rejected as the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be given any opportunity, when he had no time to peruse the Tribunal’s records for nearly six years and even before the hearing commenced.

¶72

Thus, the only presumption that can be drawn is that the learned counsel for the petitioners had purposefully and deliberately withheld vital facts relating to the filing and dismissal of Misc. Case No. 37/2018 filed by petitioner no.2, and the filing and dismissal of Misc. Case No. 40/2018, filed by the petitioner no.1. It has to be presumed that only after such deliberate and willful

¶73

Page No.# 10/15

¶74

suppression of vital facts has come to light, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to save himself, has prayed for an adjournment. Thus, the Court is constrained to hold that the learned counsel for the petitioners has not only failed to assist the Court, but has also miserably failed to discharge his duty towards the petitioners. In the process, the learned counsel for the petitioners has projected a false picture of the case before this Court, which is strongly deprecated, however, with a stern warning to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶75

Smt. Pratiba Bala Das (petitioner no.2) and Srimot Das (petitioner no.1) had filed separate applications under Order 3A of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, accompanied with separate applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which were registered as Misc. Case No. 37/2018, and Misc. Case No. 40/2018 respectively. Both those Misc. Cases were dismissed by separate orders dated 01.03.2019, which are not under challenge. Hence, the said two orders dated 01.03.2019, passed by the said learned Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 37/2018 and Misc. Case No. 40/2018, have attained finality.

¶76

Therefore, the challenge to the following orders, i.e. (i) ex parte opinion dated 21.10.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 4^th , Cachar at Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015, by which Smt. Pratibha Bala Das @ Pratiba Bala Das (petitioner no. 2) was declared to be a foreigner; and (ii) ex parte opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 4^th , Cachar at Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015, by which Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no. 1) and the other three petitioners were declared to be foreigners post 25.03.1971, miserably fail as the two orders

¶77

Page No.# 11/15

¶78

dated 01.03.2019, thereby dismissing Misc. Case No. 37/2018 and Misc. Case No.40/2018, have attained finality.

¶79

On a perusal of the Tribunal’s records, it is observed as follows:-

¶80

a. As per the ex parte opinion dated 21.10.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015, Smt. Pratiba Bala Das (petitioner no. 2), Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no. 1), Sri Mohanlal Das (petitioner no. 3), and Smt. Nayantara Das (petitioner no. 4) were held to be foreigners.

¶81

b. However, in the Tribunal’s record of Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015, discloses that vide reference under Memo No. (B)/E/122/2012/773-778 dated 15.05.2012, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Cachar, Silchar, had forwarded case records of Foreigners Act Case No. 149/12 in respect of Smt. Pratiba Bala Das, to the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar. The attached enquiry record reveals that enquiry was also directed only against Smt. Pratiba Bala Das and not against any other member of the family. The Enquiry Report in Form-II and Form-III dated (blank) day of April, 2012, which discloses the names of the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 merely as husband, son and daughter of petitioner no.2, without any enquiry against them, and such enquiry report was forwarded by the Inspector of Police (B), Cachar Silchar on 10.05.2012, and recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar on 14.05.2012.

¶82

c. In the proceedings of Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015, as per ex parte opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners

¶83

Page No.# 12/15

¶84

Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no.1), Smt. Pratiba Bala Das (petitioner no.2), Sri Mohanlal Das (petitioner no.3), and Smt. Nayantara Das (petitioner no.4) were held to be foreigners.

¶85

d. However, the Tribunal’s record of Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015, discloses that vide reference under Memo No. (B)/E/122/ 2012/773-778 dated 15.05.2012, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Cachar, Silchar, had forwarded case records of Foreigners Act Case No. 148/12 in respect of Srinath Das to the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar. The attached enquiry record reveals that enquiry was also directed only against Srimot Das and not against any other member of the family. The Enquiry Report in Form-II and Form-III dated (blank) day of April, 2012, which discloses the names of the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 merely as wife, son and daughter of petitioner no.1, without any enquiry against them, was forwarded by the Inspector of Police (B), Cachar Silchar on 10.05.2012, and recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar on 14.05.2012.

¶86

It is trite law that the principles of res judicata applies in the proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals. If one needs any authority on the point, the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604, which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jahir Ali v. Union of India & Ors., (2021) 3 GLR 105: 2021 (2) GLT 596, may be referred to.

¶87

Therefore, in light of the applicability of the principles of res judicata, in the proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals, the Court is of the considered opinion that notwithstanding that the subsequent ex parte opinion

¶88

Page No.# 13/15

¶89

dated 07.03.2018 was passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015, the earlier and/or previous ex parte opinion in point of time dated 21.10.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015, shall prevail of the two opinion.

¶90

Moreover, as there was no enquiry against Sri Mohanlal Das (petitioner no.3), and Smt. Nayantara Das (petitioner no.4), the ex parte opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015; and the ex parte opinion dated 21.10.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015, would not apply on them. In this regard, it one needs any authority on the point, the case of Sahera Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) 7404/2017, decided by this Court on 31.01.2019, may be referred to. In the said case, it has been held that proceeding initiated without reference would have to be construed to be a proceeding without jurisdiction.

¶91

However, in the case of Aktara Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (2) GLT 974, it has also been held that once a proceedee is declared to be a foreigner, it would only be logical corollary to such declaration that the proceedee’s brothers, sisters and other family members would also be foreigners and therefore, it becomes the duty of the Superintendent of Police to cause an enquiry against them.

¶92

Therefore, though by applying the law as laid down in the case of Sahera Khatun (supra), the (i) ex parte opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T.

¶93

Page No.# 14/15

¶94

4th/93/2015; and (ii) ex parte opinion dated 21.10.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015, would not apply on Sri Mohanlal Das (petitioner no.3), and Smt. Nayantara Das (petitioner no.4). Nonetheless, at the same time, by applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Aktara Khatun (supra), the Superintendent of Police (Border), Cachar, Silchar shall be bound to cause an enquiry against (a) Sri Mohanlal Das (petitioner no.3), and (b) Smt. Nayantara Das (petitioner no.4).

¶95

Accordingly, as Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no.1) and Smt. Pratiba Bala Das @ Pratibha Bala Das (petitioner no.2) have both accepted the two orders dated 01.03.2019, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Misc. Case No. 37/2018 (arising out of Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015) and Misc. Case No. 40/2018 (arising out of Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015), no interference is warranted in respect of (i) ex parte opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/93/2015- State v. Srimot Das; and (ii) ex parte opinion dated 21.10.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4^th , Cachar, Silchar, in Case No. F.T. 4th/92/2015- State v. Pratiba Bala Das.

¶96

Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶97

Before parting with the records, it is clarified that this judgment and order shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioners in the event that they approach the Government of India or the Government of Assam, claiming the rights available through the Certificate of Registration of Citizens dated 15.02.1971, issued by the Special Officer for Registration of Citizens, Silchar, in respect of those petitioners who claim through Shri Ramlal Das; and for those

¶98

Page No.# 15/15

¶99

petitioners, who claim through the Certificate in the Admission Register of new migrants post 1964, in respect of Smti. Pratiba Bala Das, petitioner no. 2.

¶100

In light of the discussions and observations, and subject to liberty granted, as indicated above, the writ petition stands dismissed in respect of Sri Srimot Das (petitioner no.1) and Smt. Pratiba Bala Das @ Pratibha Bala Das (petitioner no.2). The writ petition is partly allowed in respect of Sri Mohanlal Das (petitioner no.3), and Smt. Nayantara Das (petitioner no.4).

¶101

The parties are left to bear their own cost.

¶102

JUDGE JUDGE .

¶103

Comparing Assistant

¶104

Digitally signed by Amit Das Amit Das Date: 2026.03.19 13:30:01 +05'30'

Srimot Das and 3 Ors. v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srimot Das and 3 Ors. v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Dinesh Chandra and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs P J Mohana Panicker and 38 Ors.

Fatema Khatoon Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Binoy Das Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Chanmahammad Ali and 134 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sabera Begum Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.