Gauhati High Court
Mainul Hoque vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 26 September, 2025
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010221442025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5794/2025
MAINUL HOQUE
SON OF LATE ABBAS ALI, VILL. PARLIGURI (BHEHUGURI KUSUMBORI),
P.O. CHABUKDHARA, P.S. MIKIRBHETA, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. PIN
782123
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 01
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN - 782105.
4:THE STATE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
ASSAM
GUWAHATI - 06
5:THE STATE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
ASSAM
GUWAHATI - 781005
Page No.# 2/5
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
MORIGAON
P.O. MORIGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN - 782105
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ABEDIN, MS S DAS,MR. K I MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 26.09.2025
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R.
Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT
matters and NRC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election
Commission of India and Mr. P. Sarmah, 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 26.06.2025,
passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal No. 3rd, Morigaon in F.T.
Case No. 695/2016, arising out of Reference F.T. Case No. 163/2008, by which
the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant.
3. Issue notice, returnable after 4 (four) weeks.
4. Requisite extra copies of the writ petition be furnished to the learned
Page No.# 3/5
counsel for the respondents in course of the day.
5. Let the relevant records be called for from the concerned Foreigners'
Tribunal at the following email addresses:
[email protected]
[email protected]
6. The prayer for bail is opposed by the learned standing counsel for the
FT matters. However, in view of the projection made in this writ petition, the
Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, namely, Mainul Hoque, by
providing that if he has not already been detained in custody, he shall not be
taken into custody and deported from the territory of India, on condition that he
shall appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon within 10
(ten) days from today during the office hours and shall furnish a bail bond of Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the said authority. Further, the Superintendent of Police
(Border), Morigaon is directed that on appearance of the petitioner within the
period indicated above, the biometrics of the iris of both eyes, the fingerprints
of both hands and the photographs of the petitioner shall be obtained,
whereafter, he shall be allowed to remain on bail.
7. On his appearance before the Superintendent of Police (Border),
Morigaon, as directed above, the said authority shall obtain necessary
information and documentation as required under the Rules from the petitioner
for securing her presence.
8. On failure of the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent of
Page No.# 4/5
Police (Border), Morigaon, the bail to the petitioner would stand lapsed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has given
an undertaking to provide certified copy of Annexure-24 of the writ petition and
accordingly, he has submitted a typed copy of the impugned opinion dated
26.06.2025. The said typed copy is retained on record.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall approach the AO(J), F.T.
Section after Puja vacation to have the same incorporated as typed copy of
Annexure-24.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph
8 of the impugned opinion dated 26.06.2025, a direction has been given by the
learned Tribunal, expressing that the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon
would initiate fresh proceedings against all the family members of the petitioner
as well as against his wife and her all blood related relatives so as to keep the
spirit of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Aktara Khatun-vs-State
of Assam and send the freshly initiated reference to the jurisdictional Tribunal at
the earliest possible time.
12. The said observations of the Tribunal appears to be beyond the
jurisdiction as the wife of the petitioner and her relatives would draw their
lineage through their respective parents and therefore, the Superintendent of
Police (B), Morigaon could not have been directed to make reference against the
wife of the petitioner and all her blood relatives.
13. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to stay the operation of paragraph 8
of the impugned opinion dated 26.06.2025, passed by the learned Member,
Foreigners' Tribunal No. 3rd, Morigaon in F.T. Case No. 695/2016, arising out of
Page No.# 5/5
Reference F.T. Case No. 163/2008
14. List the matter after 4 (four) weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
