[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 10 February, 2026
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010039472019
2026:GAU-AS:1784
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3086/2019
SHIRAJUL HOQUE @ SHIRAJ ALI
S/O. MD. NURUL HOQUE, VILL. BAGURIGURI PATHAR, MOUZA- KHARIJA
BIJNI, P.S. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
THROUGH- THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA,
NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH- THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NORVACHAN SADAN ASOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001.
4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005.
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/7
BARPETA
P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM-781301.
6:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (B)
BARPETA
P.O. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM-781301
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. I HUSSAIN, MR. L R MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 10.02.2026
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC for respondent; Mr. N. Kalita, learned
counsel appearing for Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. J.
Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; 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, namely, Shirajul Hoque @ Shiraj Ali, has assailed the
impugned opinion dated 12.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners'
Tribunal, 9th, Barpeta, in F.T.9th (BPT) Case No. 71/17, arising out of S.P. Ref.
IM(D)T Case No. 1517/02, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of
post 25.03.1971 stream.
Page No.# 3/7
3. In course of hearing, the Court had perused the records of the
Tribunal and on examination of records, it is seen that in the evidence-on-
affidavit filed by petitioner Shiraj Ali as DW-1, he has exhibited 12 (twelve)
documents, out of which 2 (two) documents are referred to as Ext.J. For the
sake of convenience, the documents which are exhibited are referred below:
I. Annual khiraj patta (Ext.A)
II. Voters List of 1970 (Ext.B)
III. Voters List of 1989 (Ext.C)
IV. Voters List of 1997 (Ext.D)
V. Voters List of 2011 (Ext.E)
VI. Voters List of 2017 (Ext.F)
VII. Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) (Ext.G)
VIII. Residential Certificate issued by the Gaonburah (Ext.H)
IX. Affidavit of name correction (Ext.I)
X. Registered Sale Deed (Ext.J)
XI. Birth Certificate of Sahina Khatun (Ext.J)
XII. Birth Certificate of Rohan Ali (Ext.K)
4. In addition to already exhibited documents referred above, Rejia
Khatun, who was examined as DW-2 and has also exhibited the following
documents:
I. Annual khiraj patta (Ext.A)
II. Jamabandi (Ext.B)
III. Voters List of 1965 (Ext.C)
IV. Voters List of 1970 (Ext.D)
V. Voters List of 1985 (Ext.E)
VI. Voters List of 1997 (Ext.F)
VII. Voters List of 2008 (Ext.G)
VIII. Birth Certificate of DW-2 (Ext.H)
Page No.# 4/7
IX. Certificate by Gaonburah (Ext.I)
X. Birth Certificate of Sahina Khatun (Ext.J)
XI. Birth Certificate of Rohan Ali (Ext.K)
XII. School Certificate of DW2 (Ext.L)
XIII. EPIC of DW2 (Ext.M)
XIV. Voters List of 2016 (Ext.I)
5. On a further perusal of the records of the Tribunal, the marking
of documents as exhibit are as follows:
I. Annual Khiraj Patta (Ext.A, page 36)
II. Voters List of 1970 (Ext.B, page 37)
III. Voters List of 1989 (Ext.C, page 38-39)
IV. Voters List of 1997 (Ext.D, page 40)
V. Voters List of 2011 (Ext.E, page 41-42)
VI. EPIC of Shirajul Haque (Ext.F, page 43)
VII. Birth Certificate of Rohan Ali (Ext.G, page 44)
VIII. Birth Certificate of Sahina Khatun (Ext.H, page 45)
IX. Affidavit (Ext.I, page 46-47)
X. Sale Deed (Ext.J, page 48-51)
XI. Jamabandi (Ext.J, page 52-54)
XII. Voters List of 1965 (Ext.K, page 55-56)
XIII. Voters List of 1970 (Ext.L, page 57-58)
XIV. Voters List of 1985 (Ext.M, page 59-60)
XV. Voters List of 1997 (Ext.N, page 61)
XVI. Voters List of 2010 (Ext.O, page 62)
XVII. Birth Certificate of Rejia Khatun (Ext.P, page 63)
XVIII. School Certificate of Rejia Khatun (Ext.Q, page 64)
XIX. Identity Card issued by Gaonburah for Rejia Khatun (Ext.R, page
65)
6. The manner of marking of the documents as exhibit has
Page No.# 5/7
compelled us to make an observation that if this is the manner in which records
of the cases are being dealt with and the State Govt. has not notified any
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP for short) for maintaining the records,
specifically the exhibited documents, we pose a query to the State Govt.
through the Home & Political (B) Department as to why in an appropriate case,
orders should not be passed to the State to examine the continued utility of
those Members who are unable to maintain records properly.
7. The exercise to find out the discrepancies in the marking of
exhibits has consumed almost one and a half hours of the Court time. We hope
and trust that the State Govt. would issue an advisory to all the Foreigners
Tribunals maintain records relating to the evidence and exhibited documents in
a proper manner and to ensure that the records are examined before an opinion
is expressed by the Foreigners Tribunals.
8. We express our displeasure in the manner in which the records
have been maintained in this case. We also take note of the fact that by an
order dated 30.08.2018, the learned Member has made a reference to Ext.H.
However, we are surprised to note that though a document is marked as Ext.H,
which has been referred to in the order dated 30.08.2018, the said exhibited
document finds no mention in the opinion dated 12.12.2018.
9. We are also disturbed by the fact that in the impugned opinion
dated 12.12.2018, the learned Member has referred to Ext.A to Ext.F, Ext.I, and
Ext.J. However, in course of its decision and reasons expressed in the said
opinion, reference is made of examining Ext.A, Ext.B, Ext.C, Ext.D, Ext.E, Ext.F,
Ext.J, and Ext.I. Thus, the remaining Ext.H and Ext.K, Ext.L, Ext.M, Ext.N, Ext.O,
Ext.P, Ext.Q, and Ext.R, which are found duly signed by the learned Member in
the Trial Court Record have not been referred to.
Page No.# 6/7
10. On further perusal of the order sheet available in the Tribunal's
record, there is no order as to how additional documents could have been
marked as exhibits by the learned Tribunal. It is under these circumstances that
the Court is compelled to think as to:
I. Why the State Govt. does not give periodical training to the
learned Members as well as the UDA/Bench Assistant for proper
upkeep of the tribunal's records? and
II. Even despite training, if the learned Members are not found to
be maintaining the records as per the procedure prescribed, why their
continued utility should not be re-examined by the State Govt. on a
periodical basis as is being done for all other State Govt. employees on
attaining a particular age, where their continued utility is examined?
11. Resultantly, as the opinion dated 12.12.2018, passed by the
learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal, 9 th, Barpeta, in F.T.9th (BPT) Case no.
71/17 is found to be vitiated by non-application of mind and for non-
consideration of the evidence on record, the impugned opinion dated
12.12.2018 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to be taken up
from the stage of evidence of the DWs.
12. At this stage, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters
has submitted that they may be allowed to retain the records so as to examine
the records and then send it back to the concerned tribunal.
13. The petitioner Shirajul Hoque @ Shiraj Ali, who represented by
his learned counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Member of
Foreigners Tribunal 9th, Barpeta on or before 25.03.2026, and by producing a
certified copy of the order, wait for further orders to be passed by the said
Page No.# 7/7
learned Tribunal.
14. In the meantime, the learned standing counsel for the FT
matters shall return back the tribunal's record to the Home & Political (B)
Department along with a downloaded copy of this order to be retained as a part
of record.
15. This writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated
above.
16. The Court directs the Home & Political (B) Department to
circulate this order to all the Foreigners Tribunals in the State.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
