Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6254/2025 on 12 November, 2025
Author: S.K. Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010232772025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CASE NO. WP(C)/6254/2025
Anowar Hussain @ Anowar @ Md. Annar Hussain ...Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
BEFORE
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Hon'ble MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Advocate for the petitioner : Shri S. Islam, Advocate.
Advocates for the respondents : Shri G. Sarma, SC, Home Dept. & NRC,
Shri M.R. Adhikari, CGC,
Shri P. Sharma, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate
Ms. S. Katakey, SC, ECI.
Date on which judgment is reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 12.11.2025
Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the
judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes
Page No.# 2/4
Judgment & Order
(S.K. Medhi, J.)
Heard Shri S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri G.
Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Home Dept. and NRC, Shri M.R. Adhikari,
learned CGC, Shri P. Sharma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate and
Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, ECI.
Considering the subject matter involved and as agreed to by the learned
counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the
motion stage itself.
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed challenging an opinion dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Foreigners
Tribunal No. 7th, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 384/2019 (reference F.T. Case No.
1036/04). By the aforesaid opinion, the petitioner has been declared an illegal
migrant post 1971 stream.
Shri Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily based the
present challenge on the contention that the impugned order has been passed
ex parte against the petitioner without giving any reasonable opportunity.
By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned opinion, the
learned counsel has submitted that though there is an observation that notice
was deemed to be served as per the provisions of Order 3 (5)(f) of the
Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, (hereinafter, the Order of 1964) there was
no fulfilment of the aforesaid provision of law. He has submitted that as per the
impugned opinion itself, the copy of the notice was affixed in the Office of the
Gaonburah which is not one of the prescription of the law relating to service of
Page No.# 3/4
notice. He has submitted that due to the lack of information regarding the
proceeding, the petitioner could not contest the same resulting in the impugned
opinion.
Shri G. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that
though certain observations have been made in the impugned opinion regarding
service of notice upon the petitioner proceedee, the same does not appear to be
in strict conformity of the requirement of Order 3 (5) (f) of the Order of 1964.
He submits that in case the proceedee changes the place of residence or place
of work, notice has to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous
part of the house where the proceedee ordinarily resides.
The learned counsel for the other respondents have also endorsed the
aforesaid position of law.
Order 3 (5) (f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 reads as follows.
3. Procedure for disposal of questions.
(1) ...
...
(5) (f) if the proceedee has changed the place of residence or place of
work, without intimation to the investigating agency, the process server
shall affix a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the house in which the proceedee ordinarily resides
or last resided or reportedly resided or personally worked for gain or
carries on business, and shall return the original to the Foreigners
Tribunal from which it was issued with a report endorsed thereon or
annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the
circumstances under which he did do, and the name and address of the
person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence
the copy was affixed;
...
The said order is in connection with service of notice to a proceedee in a
situation where the proceedee changes his place of residence or place of work
Page No.# 4/4
without intimation. The requirement is to affix a copy of such notice on the
outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house where the proceedee
ordinarily or last resided.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the notice was affixed on the
Office of the Gaonburah which does not appear to be in conformity of the
aforesaid provision of law.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the notice of the
proceedee was not served on the petitioner in accordance with law.
Situated thus, we have no other option but to interfere with the impugned
opinion dated 28.08.2024. We make it clear that such interference is not on the
inter se merits of the parties and only on the aspect of service of notice.
Since the petitioner is presently having the knowledge of the proceeding,
we direct the petitioner to appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.
7th, Barpeta on 25.11.2025 with his written statement which would be accepted
by the learned Tribunal whereafter the Tribunal would take charge of the
proceeding and conclude the same expeditiously in accordance with law and
with the provision of Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
The writ petition accordingly stands allowed in the manner indicated
above.
The petitioner is at liberty to furnish a certified copy of this order along
with the written statement before the learned Tribunal.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
