Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs The Union Of India And Othrs on 16 July, 2025
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010108332025
2025:GAU-AS:9219-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2930/2025
MD MAZID ALI
SON OF HAFIJ ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAKHINPAT BALIGAON, P.S.
RAHA, DISTRICT- NAGAON, PIN CODE- 782103
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001
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
Page No.# 2/9
ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001
7:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC)
ASSAM
1ST FLOOR
ACHYUT PLAZA
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B H SHIRIN, MR. S S A RAHMAN,MR. S S S RAHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 16.07.2025
(K.R. Surana, J)
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.
2. 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 6th, Nagaon in F.T. Case No.
NFT (6th) 309/08, arising out of Reference IMDT Case No. 200/03, by which the
petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant.
3. The admitted case of the petitioner is that he had received a
Page No.# 3/9
notice from the learned Tribunal to appear on 13.08.2014.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
Page No.# 4/9
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.
7. 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.
8. 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.,
Page No.# 5/9
Civil Appeal No. 5027/2024 [arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30152/2018], decided
on 18.04.2024.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
Page No.# 6/9
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."
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.
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:
The first is - "Equity aids the vigilant" - Anonymous.
The second is - "We have all the time in the world" (epitaph for Mrs.
Bond in For Your Eyes Only.) (Danjaq Productions, 1981).
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.
Page No.# 7/9
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.
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 out-
of-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.
12. 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
Page No.# 8/9
petition on 20.05.2025, disentitles the petitioner to a relief.
13. Moreover, in the case of Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali v. Union of India
& Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 623, this Court has held as follows:
"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."
14. 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 6th, Nagaon in F.T. Case No. NFT (6th)
309/08, arising out of Reference IMDT Case No. 200/03. Resultantly, this writ
petition is dismissed.
15. The consequences of the said opinion dated 30.08.2018, shall
follow.
Page No.# 9/9
16. 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.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
