Shukurjan Begum Alias Musstt Sukurjan Vs the Union of India and Othrs

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MR. F A AHMED,MS. K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 09.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J)

¶23

Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.

¶24

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the ex parte impugned opinion dated 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No. FTG.185/2011, arising out of Police Enquiry No.54/2007, by which the petitioner, namely, Shukurjan Begum @ Musstt. Sukurjan, has been declared to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971 stream, as she had entered into Assam (India) without any valid documents.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the said ex parte opinion, the petitioner has been taken into custody on 25.05.2025 and she is presently lodged at the Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara.

¶26

This writ petition has been filed on 05.12.2025 and the affidavit in

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

support of the writ petition has been sworn by the husband of the petitioner, namely, Lal Miya, and it has been stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the summons were duly served on the husband of the petitioner, but the husband of the petitioner did not inform her of the said fact and left outside the place of residence for livelihood. Accordingly, there was a default on the part of the petitioner to appear before the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal and contest the proceedings.

¶29

The learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters has opposed the prayer for setting aside of the ex parte opinion on the ground that the notice was duly served on the adult member of the family and therefore, there was due compliance of the provision of Order 3(5)(e) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not invoke the provision of Order 3-C of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which provides for setting aside of the ex parte opinion, subject to the filing of the application within 30 days of the said opinion. Accordingly, the prayer made in this application is opposed.

¶30

In the considered opinion of the Court, without entering into the merit of the reasoned assigned, as the petitioner was taken into custody on 25.05.2025 pursuant to the ex parte opinion, and as the petitioner as well as her husband admit receipt of the notice and also admit the default on the part of the petitioner in contesting the proceedings, the Court is inclined to grant the petitioner an opportunity to file an application under Order 3-C of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event the petitioner files such an application within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order under Order 3-C of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964,

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

notwithstanding the period of delay prescribed therein, the learned Tribunal shall entertain the said application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶33

If the review application and/ or any other petition supported by affidavit is authenticated by the Superintendent of the Transit Camp at Matia, Goalpara, the same shall be accepted by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat by taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been taken into custody.

¶34

It is also provided that upon filing of such application under Order 3-C of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, it would be open to the petitioner to pray for bail, and the learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders as deemed fit and proper.

¶35

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶36

There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶37

JUDGE JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Shukurjan Begum Alias Musstt Sukurjan v. the Union of India and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shukurjan Begum Alias Musstt Sukurjan v. the Union of India and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariyam Bibi @ Mariyam Bewa @ Morium Bewa @ Marian Bibi Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Bahar Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Rajib Hussain Alias MD Rajib Hussain Vs the Union of India and Othrs