[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Alpana Manna vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 22 May, 2026
Author: S.K Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010276582025
2026:GAU-AS:7135-
DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/38/2026
ALPANA MANNA
WIFE OF LATE SATISH KUMAR MANNA, RESIDENT OF KALAPAHAR
PAHARTOLI, 3RD BYE LANE HILL SIDE, NEAR RABINDRA SANGHA, KALI
MANDIR, HOUSE NO.52, LOKHRA ROAD, P.O. BINOVA NAGAR, P.S. FATASIL
AMBARI, GUWAHATI - 781018, DISTRICT - KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI -781006.
4:THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE COORDINATOR ACHYUT PLAZA
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
DISTRICT - KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (METRO)
GUWAHATI -781001
DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM.
6:THE MEMBER
FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL NO.2
KAMRUP (METRO)
GUWAHATI DISTRICT - SONITPUR
ASSAM PIN 784001
7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
CITY
GUWAHATI
SRIMANTAPUR
CHILARAI NAGAR
GUWAHATI - 781032
DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO)
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : M K BORAH, MS. P. KASHYAP
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, F.T,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,GA,
ASSAM
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
22-05-2026
(S.K Medhi, J)
Heard Mr. M.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the Home
Department and NRC; Mr. P. Sarma, learned Govt Advocate, Assam;
Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali,
Page No.# 3/7
learned Standing Counsel for the ECI and Ms. J. Sarma, learned
CGC.
2. The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed challenging an opinion dated 08.07.2019 passed
by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal No.2, Kamrup(M) at
Guwahati in F.T. Case No.243/2018, whereby the petitioner has been
declared a foreigner post 1971. The primary ground of challenge is
that the opinion has been rendered ex-parte and the petitioner was
deprived of an opportunity to defend herself.
3. Mr. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing
the attention of this Court to the impugned opinion has submitted
that it would appear that the notice was not served in the manner
contemplated by law. He has submitted that admittedly, the notice
was affixed on a wall of a fish market of Kahilipara, where the
opposite party last resided. It is submitted that at no point of time
the notice was served or received by her.
4. On the aspect of the delay in making the present challenge,
the learned counsel has submitted that on coming to know about
the opinion dated 08.07.2019, he had engaged a counsel to take
steps to file an application for review, which however was not done
and accordingly, the delay has occasioned.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have fairly
submitted that the manner by which the notice was served does not
appear to be in strict compliance with the requirements of law.
However, it is strenuously argued that the delay in approaching this
Page No.# 4/7
Court has not been adequately explained. It is specifically argued
that approaching a counsel to file a review and thereafter, coming to
this Court after a lapse of about 7 years will reflect gross negligence
and laches.
6. The aspect of service of notice is laid down in the Foreigners'
(Tribunals) Order, 1964, more specifically, under Order 3(5). For
the sake of convenience, the provisions are extracted herein below:-
"(5) (a) The notice shall be served at the address where the proceedee
last resided or reportedly resides or works for gain, and in case of
change of place of residence, which has been duly intimated in writing to
the investigating agency by the alleged person, it shall be served at such
changed address by the Foreigners Tribunal.
(b) if the proceedee is not found at the address at the time of
service of notice, the notice may be served on any adult member of the
family of the proceedee and it shall be deemed to be served on the
proceedee;
(c) where the notice is served on the adult member of the family
of the proceedee, the process server shall obtain the signature or thumb
impression of the adult member on the duplicate of the notice as a token
of proof of the service;
(d) if the adult member of the family of the proceedee refuses to
put a signature or the thumb impression, as the case may be, the
process server shall report the same to the Foreigners Tribunals;
(e) if the proceedee or an available adult member of his or her
family refuses to accept the notice, the process server shall give a report
to the Foreigners Tribunal in that regard along with the name and
address of a person of the locality, who was present at the time of
making such an effort to get the notices served, provided such person is
available and willing to be a witness to such service and the process
server shall obtain the signature or thumb impression of such witness, if
Page No.# 5/7
he or she is present and willing to sign or put his or her thumb
impression, as the case may be;
(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;
(g) where the proceedee or any adult member of his or her family
or her is not found at the residence, a copy of the notice shall be pasted
in a conspicuous place of his or her residence, witnessed by one
respectable person of the locality, subject to his or her availability and
willingness to be a witness in that regard and the process server shall
obtain the signature or the thumb impression of that person in the
manner in which such service is affected;
(h) where the proceedee resides outside the jurisdiction of the
Foreigners Tribunal, the notice shall be sent for service to the officer in-
charge of the police station within whose jurisdiction the proceedee
resides or last resided or is last known to have resided or worked for gain
and the process server shall then cause the service of notice in the
manner as provided hereinabove;
(i) if no person is available or willing to be the witness of service
of notice or refuses to put his or her signature or thumb impression the
process server shall file a signed certificate or verification to that effect,
which shall be sufficient proof of such non-availability, unwillingness and
refusal;
(j) on receipt of the signed certificate or verification referred to in
clause (i) the Foreigners Tribunals shall return such references with such
directions as it thinks fit to the competent authority for tracing out the
Page No.# 6/7
proceedee and produce before the said Tribunal."
7. In the instant case, it appears from the impugned opinion that
the notice was fixed on the wall of the fish market, where, the
petitioner had last resided. There is no specific finding as to where
the residence of the petitioner was.
8. Having said that, we are, however, not impressed with the
explanation provided for the delay in approaching this Court. While
the petitioner admits that information of the opinion was received by
her, the explanation is that an advocate was approached to file a
review, which was not done. Such explanation will not be sufficient
to explain inordinate and long period of about seven years to
challenge the ex-parte opinion.
9. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion that while a case for interference is made out with a
direction for remand, the same has to be subjected to certain cost to
be deposited by the petitioner.
10. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and the
impugned ex-parte opinion dated 08.07.2019 is set aside with the
following directions:-
(i) The matter is remanded back to the concerned learned
Tribunal with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the
Tribunal on 12th June 2026, along with the written statement and
the evidence-in-chief of all the witnesses.
(ii) On such appearance and filing of the requisites as directed
above, the same would be accepted by the learned Tribunal and
Page No.# 7/7
would take charge of the proceedings. It is also directed that the
learned Tribunal would endeavour to complete the proceedings
inconsonance with Order 3(14), which lays down completion of such
proceeding within a period of 60 days.
11. As indicated above, the petitioner is also required to pay cost
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only in favour of the
Gauhati High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund A/C
No.34778155050.
12. Writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
B. Dey.
Comparing Assistant
