Azmira Bibi @ Azmira Khatun vs Union Of India And 4 Ors.

Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010009672017

2026:GAU-AS:16520-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/89/2017
AZMIRA BIBI @ AZMIRA KHATUN
W/O. SOHIDUR RAHMAN, D/O. AMZAD ALI, VILL. CHITAGURI, P.O.
MAKRITHORA, P.S. GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF
INDIA, NEW DELHI-1.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM.
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B DHUBRI
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM.
5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
GURIPUR POLICE STATION
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM

Page No.# 2/13
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M R Z CHOUDHURY, MS.S KAKATI,MD.H BHUYAN,MS.J
BEGUM,MS.J H CHOUDHURY,MS.S BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : , ASSTT.S.G.I.,GA, ASSAM

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
Advocate for the petitioner : Md. H. Bhuyan.
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S. Chakraborty, CGC,
: Mr. A.I .Ali, SC, ECI
: Mr. J. Payeng, SC, FT,
Border matters and NRC.
: Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. G.A.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 21.07.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : No.
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes.


JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Md. H. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned CGC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for
the ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC;

Page No.# 3/13
and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, namely, Azmira Bibi @ Azmira Khatun has assailed the

impugned opinion dated 14.09.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’
th th
Tribunal, 6 Dhubri at Bilasipara, in FT. Case No 6 , Dhubri 1-272/2016, arising
out of Ref No.1509/D/07 and Tr. No.781/BLP/11, by which the petitioner was
declared as an illegal migrant.
3. On receipt of notice, the petitioner had entered appearance and
filed her written statement denying that she is a foreigner or illegal migrant and
claimed to be an indigenous citizen of Assam by birth. The petitioner claimed
that her father is Amzat Ali @ Amzat Ali Shekh and her grandfather is
Noimuddin @ Noimuddin Shekh. She claims to born and brought up at vill-
Chataguri Pt-II under Bagribari P.S, in the district of Dhubri (now Kokrajhar).
She claims that the name of her grandfather was enrolled in the voter’s list of
1961 and name of her grandparents were entered in the voter’s list of 1966
moreover, the name of her grandfather and grandparents were also entered in
the NRC with legacy data. She claims that her grandfather had died in the year
1970 and accordingly, her grandmother namely, Jamiron Bewa appeared in the
electoral roll of 1970 and her name also appears in the voter details of legacy
data for the said year. The name of her father appeared in the electoral roll of
1997. The petitioner claimed that on 20.09.2002 she was married with Sahidur
Rahman of Vill-Poyasti Salmara in the district of Dhubri by exhibiting a marriage
Kabinnama and her name was enrolled in the voter’s list of 1997 at Vill-
Chataguri Pt-II under Bagribari P.S. However, against her name “D” mark was
made. The petitioner in order to substantiate the linkage with her projected
father has referred to the certificate issued by the Mahamaya VCDC. The

Page No.# 4/13
petitioner has stated that before the marriage her name was Azmira Khautun
and after marriage was Azmira Bibi and accordingly, both are same person. In
order to support her contention, the petitioner relies on the certificate counter
signed by BDO, Mahamaya Block.
4. In support of the stand taken in the written statement, the
petitioner has examined herself as DW-1 and she had filed her evidence-on-
affidavit, wherein the reiterating the statements has exhibited the following
documents:-
Ext.1 is the said NRC details.
Ext.2 is the image of NRC.
Ext.3 is said voter details 1961.
Ext.4 is said image of Electoral Roll 1961.
Ext.5 is certified copy of Electoral Roll 1961.
Ext.6 is the said voter Details 1966 of her grandfather
Ext.7 is voter Details 1966 of my grandmother.
Ext.8 is said image of Electoral Roll 1966.
Ext.9 is the said certified copy of Electoral Roll 1966.
Ext.10 is the said voter details.
Ext.11 is image of Electoral Roll of 1970.
Ext.12 is the certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1970.
Ext.13 is the said certified copy of Electoral Roll 1997.
Ext.14 is the certified copy of Electoral Roll of 2005.
Ext.15 is the certified copy of Electoral Roll of 2011.
Ext.16 is her marriage Kabinnama.
Ext.17 is certificate of Gaon Burah and
Ext.18 is certificate of Mahamaya V.C.D.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the various
exhibits referred above has submitted that the petitioner has been able to show

Page No.# 5/13
and prove that she is the daughter of Amzat Ali @ Amzat Ali Sheikh and the
name of her grandfather is Noimuddin Sheikh accordingly, it is submitted that
exhibited documents were wrongly appreciated by the learned Tribunal which
has vitiated the opinion. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays
for setting aside the impugned opinion and to declare the petitioner not a
foreigner.
6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border
matters has submitted that the petitioner is trying to connect her to one Amzat
Ali whose name appears in the voter’s list of 1977. It is submitted that through
Amzat Ali, projected father, the petitioner is trying to connect herself to
Noimuddin Sheikh her projected grandfather. It is further submitted that
existence of the projected father of the petitioner in the State of Assam is only
from voter’s list of 1997 (Ext.13) and therefore, the existence of the projected
father of the petitioner in the State of Assam is not available before the year
1971. It is also submitted that the marriage certificate would not have relied on
by the learned Tribunal as the marriage disclosed in the Kabin Nama was held
on 20.09.2002 and since it is not registered after 12 years and moreover, the
author of the Kabin Nama was not examined though the entry in the Kabin
Nama was made on 30.10.2014 which is about 12 years after purported
marriage took place on 20.09.2002. Accordingly, the learned standing counsel
for the FT and Border matters prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
7. The petitioner had also examined Amzat Ali @ Amzat Ali Sheikh,
her projected father as DW-2. He had reiterated the statement made by the
petitioner in her evidence-on-affidavit and he had re-exhibited all the relating
documents already exhibited by the petitioner. On a query of the learned
Tribunal, the DW-2 had stated that he had put his signature on understanding

Page No.# 6/13
the contents.
8. The petitioner had also examined one Zakir Hussain Mondal,
LDA at the office of the Election Officer, Dhubri, as DW-3, who had stated in his
evidence-on-affidavit that he had brought the Electoral Roll of 1961, containing
the name of Noimuddin Shekh, S/o. Kosimuddin, aged 30 years (Ext.5) and he
had also exhibited the signature of the Election Officer, Dhubri [Ext.5(i)]. He had
also brought the Electoral Roll of 1970, containing the name of Jamiron Bewa,
W/o. Noimuddin, aged 36 years (Ext.12) and the signature of the Election
Officer [Ext.12(i)]. On a query of the learned Tribunal, DW-3 had also stated
that he had put his signature on understanding the contents of the affidavit.
9. The petitioner had examined one Abdur Rahman Sk. as DW-4,
who is the Govt. appointed Muslim Marriage Registrar and Kazi at Panbari
Rangamati, Dist. Dhubri, Assam. He had stated that on 20.09.2002, muslim
marriage was held by executing marriage Kabin Nama between Sahidur
Rahman, S/o. Md. Gyeas Uddin Shekh, village- Poyasthi Salmara, P.S. South
Salmara, Dist. Dhubri, Assam; and Azmira Khatun, daughter of Amzat Ali of
village- Chataguri, PS. Bagribari, Dist. Dhurbri, Assam, which was registered by
his office vide No. 1053/2016, dated 30.10.2014. He had brought his office
register and on being tallied, the contents of the same are found to be correct.
He had exhibited the marriage Kabin Nama (Ext.16); his signatures [Ext.16(i)
and 16(ii)]; seals [Ext.16(iii) and 16(iv)]; official round seal [Ext.16(v)]; and
Marriage Registrar Seal [Ext.16(vi)]. On a query of the learned Tribunal, he had
stated that he had put his signature on understanding the contents of the
affidavit. Along with his evidence-on-affidavit, the DW-4 had also produced his
licence under the Assam Moslem Marrriage and Divorce Act, 1935, dated
13.01.1992, issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Assam. The said

Page No.# 7/13
document contains counter signature by the learned Tribunal with an
endorsement “compared with original copy, dated 14.06.2016”.
10. The petitioner had also examined one Khushiman Barman, the
Gaonburah of Chataguri Part-II village under Bagribari P.S., Dist. Kokrajhar,
BTAD, Assam as DW-5. He had exhibited his certificate dated 10.03.2016
(Ext.16); his signature and seal [Ext.17(i)]; official round seal [Ext.17(ii)]; and
photo of proceedee Azmira Bibi @ Azmira Khatun [Ext.17(iii)]. On a query of the
learned Tribunal, the said witness had also stated that he had put his signature
on understanding the contents of the affidavit.
11. The petitioner has examined one Nurul Islam, Election Assistant
at the office of the Election Officer, Bilsaipara as DW-6. He had brought the
record of the Electoral Roll 1966 (Ext.9) containing the names of Noimuddin
Shekh, S/o. Kosimuddin, aged 40 years; and Jamiron Bibi, W/o. Noimuddin,
aged 32 years. He had exhibited the signature of the Election Officer, Bilasipara
[Ext.9(i)]. The said witness had exhibited the Electoral Roll of 1997 (Ext.13),
where the voter is Amjat Ali Shekh, S/o. Noimuddin, aged 35 years. He had
exhibited the signature of the Election Officer, Bilasipara [Ext.13(i)]. He had
exhibited the Electoral Roll of 2011 (Ext.15), where the voter is Amjat Ali Shekh,
S/o. Noimuddin, aged 49 years. He had exhibited the signature of the Election
Officer, Bilasipara [Ext.15(i)]. On a query of the learned Tribunal, the said
witness had submitted that he had put his signature after understanding its
contents.
12. On perusal of the records of the learned Tribunal, it is seen that
the learned Tribunal has not even referred to the 6 (six) other witnesses
examined by the petitioner and the documents exhibited by them by producing
the originals, which are referred to above.

Page No.# 8/13
13. In a perfunctory and casual manner, the learned Tribunal has
discussed the evidence and given its reasons. Therefore, it would be appropriate
to extract the scanned copy of that part of the opinion and make it a part of this
order. This is the relevant portion of the order.

Page No.# 9/13

Page No.# 10/13

Page No.# 11/13
14. From the scanned copy of the opinion of the learned Tribunal, as
referred above, it is apparent that by referring to the voter list of 1961 (Ext. 5)
and the voter list of 1966 (Ext. 9), the learned Tribunal had recorded that the
name of the purported grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Naimuddin Shekh
is proved on record. Therefore, there appears to be no dispute with regard to
the fact that Naimuddin Shekh is the grandfather of the petitioner. However, the
entire evidence was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not been
able to prove that her purported father, Amjat Ali, is the son of her purported
grandfather, Naimuddin Shekh.
15. In this case, the petitioner, by examining the Gaonburah of
village- Chataguri Part-II, namely, Khushiman Barman, had made an effort to
prove through the said Gaonburah that there was some minor discrepancy in
the name of Amzat Ali and Amzat Ali Shekh.
16. In her written statement as well as in her evidence-on-affidavit,
the petitioner had stated that her father name was Amzat Ali Sheikh and in the
Electoral Roll of 1997 and 2005, the name of her father was recorded as Amjat
Ali Sheikh and that as per exhibited Kabin Nama, she is the daughter of Md.
Amzat Ali. As stated above, the petitioner had examined her projected father,
Amzat Ali Sheikh, as DW-2.
17. Under such circumstances, apart from examining herself, the
petitioner had examined 5 (five) other witnesses, whose names are referred
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal
had perfunctorily and casually passed the opinion by ignoring the evidence of
DW-2 to DW-6, which are available at pages 87 to 90 for DW-2, pages 92 to 93
for DW-3, pages 94 to 97 for DW-4, pages 98 to 100 for DW-5, and pages 102
to 104 for DW-6.

Page No.# 12/13
18. This appears to be a fit and proper case to hold that the learned
Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the evidence on record, which is
found to have vitiated the impugned opinion.

19. Accordingly, the impugned opinion dated 14.09.2016, passed by
th
the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, 6 Dhubri at Bilasipara, in FT. Case
th
No 6 Dhubri 1-272/2016, arising out of Ref No.1509/D/07 and Tr.
No.781/BLP/11 is hereby set aside and quashed.
20. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for passing
a fresh opinion after examining all the evidence and exhibited documents on
record.
21. The petitioner, namely, Azmira Bibi @ Azmira Khatun, who is duly
represented by her learned counsel, is directed to appear before the said
learned Tribunal within the outer time limit of 04.12.2026 and by producing a
certified copy of the order, await for any further order that may be passed by
the said learned Tribunal.
22. It is further provided that on the date of appearance of the
petitioner, she shall be ready and willing to take bail of such sum as may be
deemed fit and proper by the learned Tribunal. It is provided that the bail so
granted by the learned Tribunal shall be valid for a period of 30 (thirty) days
from the date of the opinion that may be passed by the said learned Tribunal.
23. This writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.
24. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
25. The Registry shall expeditiously return back the Tribunal’s record
along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the records by the learned

Page No.# 13/13
Tribunal for future reference.

JUDGE JUDGE .
Digitally signed by Champak
Rajbongshi
Date: 2026.11.11 17:13:31 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant Private Secretary