Begum Alias Begum Nessa vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors.

Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010019532026

2026:GAU-AS:16239-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/850/2026
BEGUM ALIAS BEGUM NESSA
W/O-JOMER ALI, D/O-FOTIK MOLLAH, R/O-VILL-NALONGA PAHARTOLI,
P.S.-BAGUAN, DIST-GOALPARA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THAT ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110001.
4:THE OFFICE OF THE STATE CO ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL
REGISTRATION OF CITIZENS (NRC)
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
GUWAHATI781005.
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

Page No.# 2/14
DIST-GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783101.
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN783101.
7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
BAGUAN
DIST-GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN783129
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MS M DAS,MR. S MOLLAH
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM,SC, F.T
Linked Case : WP(C)/2125/2026
BEGUM ALIAS BEGUM NESSA ALIAS BEGUM KHATUN
W/O JOMER ALI ALIAS JOMUN ALI
D/O FOTIK MOLLAH
R/O VILL. NALONGA PAHARTOLI
P.S. BAGUAN
PIN 783129
DIST. GOLAPARA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI -110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT

Page No.# 3/14
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110001.
4:THE OFFICE OF THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL
REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN (NRC)
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
DIST. KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-781005.
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783101.
6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783101.
7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
BAGUAN
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783129.
------------
Advocate for : MR. J AHMED
Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. J. Ahmed.
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. N. Upadhay, CGC,
: Ms. S. Katakey, SC, ECI
: Ms. A. Verma, SC, FT,
Border matters and NRC.
: Mr. P. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. G.A.

Page No.# 4/14

Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.08.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.11.2026
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 Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. N. Upadhay, learned CGC; Ms. S. Katakey, learned standing counsel
for the ECI; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the Border and FT
matters; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate.
2. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has suffered 2 (two) opinions, i.e. ex parte opinion dated 07.09.2017,
th
passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 8 at Goalpara, in Case
th 15
No. F.T.(8 )-GLP/571/16, arising out of Ref:- E.R.O. Case No. 57 / ,; and the
38
opinion dated 31.10.2023, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-
th
4 , Goalpara, in F.T. Case No. FT(G-4)339/16, arising out of Ref. E.R.O. Case
93
no. 773 / , both the writ petitions are taken up together.
38

Page No.# 5/14
WP(C) 850/2026
3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned ex parte opinion dated
th
07.09.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 8 at
th
Goalpara, in Case No. F.T.(8 )-GLP/571/16, arising out of Ref:- E.R.O. Case No.
15
57 / , thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971
38
stream.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on
02.11.2025, the petitioner was arrested by the police in connection with PRC
Case No. 1532/2022, under Section 3 of the Passport Act, 1920, read with
Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and since her arrest, she has been
kept in detention and is presently lodged at District Jail, Goalpara.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after
the arrest of the petitioner on 02.11.2025, the petitioner and her family
members came to know about the passing of the ex parte opinion dated
th
07.09.2017, passed in Case No. F.T.(8 )-GLP/571/16. Thereafter, the family
members of the petitioner applied for a certified copy on 04.11.2025, which was
obtained on 10.11.2025. It is submitted that the process server initially could
not find the petitioner for service of process, and thereafter, the process issued
to the petitioner was hung at a conspicuous place, which is stated to be a shop.
The matter was adjourned on 6 (six) occasions, i.e. 05.09.2016, 26.09.2016,
08.11.2016, 12.12.2016, 25.07.2017 and 17.08.2017. As the petitioner did not
appear, the learned Tribunal passed the ex parte opinion against the petitioner,
declaring her to be a foreigner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner

Page No.# 6/14
was never served with notice and, therefore, the proceeding is required to be
interfered with.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has sufficient documents to prove her Indian citizenship. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied on the statements made in paragraphs 13
to 29 of the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of India
and her parents and grandparents were all citizens of India and in this regard,
the petitioner had given a description of her parental family and the family tree
of her projected grandfather. It is submitted that, if given an opportunity, the
petitioner would be able to demonstrate that the names of her grandparents
appeared in the voter list of 1966 and the names of her parents appeared along
with those of her grandmother, uncle and aunt in the voter list of 1970. It is
submitted that the father of the petitioner had shifted his residence on 2 (two)
occasions and the names of her brothers appeared along with that of her father,
who had died in the year 2016, and thereafter their names appeared along with
her mother. The petitioner’s own name appeared in the voters list of 2005 along
with her husband's family. It is submitted that, notwithstanding a slight
discrepancy in age and the spelling of the name, the said documents are
sufficient to prove that the petitioner is a citizen of India.
7. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border
matters has submitted that the notice of the proceeding was duly served upon
the petitioner's husband, namely, Jaman Ali, son of Abdul Sattar, resident of
Kaladanga and in acknowledgement thereof, the husband of the petitioner had
put his signature on the back page of the notice. The same was returned to the
learned Tribunal by the Officer-in-Charge of Goalpara River Police Station.

Page No.# 7/14
8. After carefully perusing the records of the Tribunal, the notice
issued to the petitioner, which is available at page 16 of the Tribunal's records,
reveals that the notice was issued on 08.11.2016 and was received by the
concerned police authorities on 19.11.2016. The notice was endorsed to the
Officer-in-Charge of River Police Station, Pancharatna, for service on
19.11.2016. The round seal of the said police station contains Serial No. 312/16,
dated 21.11.2016. The Inspector, Officer-in-Charge of River Police Station,
Pancharatna, endorsed the notice to the concerned police personnel on
05.12.2016. Though the notice is stated to have been served upon Jaman Ali,
son of Abdul Sattar of Kaladanga, the service report does not contain any date.
However, below the endorsement by the Officer-in-Charge of River Police
Station, Goalpara, for return of the notice after service, the date 13.12.2016 is
written over an illegible date, and the date of service is overwritten. However,
the returnable date of the notice was 12.12.2016, and on the said date, i.e.
12.12.2016, the learned Member passed an order recording that the notice had
been returned as served in the manner provided under the Foreigners
(Tribunals) Order, 1964 and no next date was fixed for necessary order, and the
date portion was left blank.
9. The record was next put up on 25.07.2017, and according to the
said order, the learned Tribunal, having seen the report of the process server
wherein it was recorded that the notice had not been served, issued fresh notice
to the proceedee, and the next date of the proceeding was fixed on 17.08.2017
for service report. On 17.08.2017, the order reflects that the “proceedee absent,
next date fixed on 07.09.2017 for necessary orders”, and on 07.09.2017, the ex
parte opinion was passed.
10. Thus, though the process/notice issued on 08.11.2016, which

Page No.# 8/14
appears to have been served upon the husband of the petitioner, but the service
report was returned only on 13.12.2016 (the date 13 is overwritten over an
illegible date). Therefore, notwithstanding the order dated 12.12.2016 recording
that the notice had been duly served, in the opinion of the Court, when the
notice was returned on 13.12.2016, the learned Tribunal could not have
recorded the return of the notice on a prior date, i.e. 12.12.2016. It is reiterated
that, as per the order dated 12.12.2016, no next date was fixed for necessary
order, and the date portion was left blank.
11. Further, fresh summons was issued to the petitioner on
28.07.2017, and as per the service report, which is available at page 22 of the
Tribunal's record, the notice was served by hanging it on the wall of a school at
of Kaladanga Char. The manner of service is not in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which
requires the notice to be served at the place of last residence of the petitioner.
Therefore, the manner in which the ex parte opinion was passed is not found to
be sustainable in facts and in law, as the notice was not duly served in
accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned ex parte opinion dated
th
07.09.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 8 at Goalpara,
th 15
in Case No. F.T.(8 )-GLP/571/16, arising out of Ref:- E.R.O. Case No. 57 / ,
38
is hereby set aside and quashed.
12. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is
th
remanded to the Foreigners Tribunal No.8 , Goalpara, for granting an
opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement and to adduce evidence in
the matter.

Page No.# 9/14
13. The petitioner, who is stated to be in custody and is presently
lodged at District Jail, Goalpara, would be entitled to apply for bail in connection
with the PRC Case No. 1532/2022.
14. In view of the fact that the ex parte opinion against the
petitioner has been set aside, she cannot be termed to be an illegal foreigner
until a fresh opinion is passed by the learned Tribunal.
15. Accordingly, it is provided that the family member of the
petitioner shall appear before the SP (Border), and furnish a certified copy of
this order. Thereafter, the SP (Border), Goalpara shall take steps to have the
petitioner released from the jail within 3 (three) days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
16. The petitioner, namely, Begum @ Begum Nessa @ Begum
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 and thereafter, the petitioner shall be given
an opportunity to lead evidence.
17. 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.

Page No.# 10/14
WP(C) 2125/2026
18. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 31.10.2023,
th
passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-4 , Goalpara, in F.T. Case
93
No. FT(G-4)339/16, arising out of Ref. E.R.O. Case no. 773 / , thereby
38
declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.
19. As the opinion dated 31.10.2023 was challenged by filing this
writ petition only on 09.03.2026, keeping the issue of maintainability open,
notice was issued by order dated 24.04.2026, and the Tribunal's records were
called for.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has suffered 2 (two) adverse opinions from two different Foreigners
Tribunals, first opinion being ex parte opinion dated 07.09.2017, passed by the
th th
learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 8 at Goalpara, in Case No. F.T.(8 )-
15
GLP/571/16, arising out of Ref:- E.R.O. Case No. 57 / ; and the second
38
opinion being the opinion dated 31.10.2023, passed by the learned Member,
th
Foreigners Tribunal-4 , Goalpara, in F.T. Case No. FT(G-4)339/16, arising out of
93
Ref. E.R.O. Case No. 773 / .
38
21. It is submitted that the petitioner had contested the second
proceeding without being aware of the ex parte opinion passed in the first
proceeding. It is submitted that on the basis of the previous ex parte opinion
dated 07.09.2017, the petitioner was taken into custody on 02.11.2025 and she
is currently lodged at District Jail, Goalpara, pursuant to the said impugned ex

Page No.# 11/14
parte opinion as well as PRC Case No. 1532/2022, which was registered on the
basis of the FIR dated 09.05.2019, registered as River Police Station, Goalpara
Case No. 09/2019 under Section 3 of the Passport Act, 1920, read with Section
14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
22. Accordingly, it is submitted that the second proceeding is hit by
the principles of res judicata.
23. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border
matters has submitted that the petitioner had not contested the first proceeding
but had contested the subsequent proceeding, wherein she was declared to be
a foreigner of the post -25.03.1971 stream. It is submitted that, on merits, the
petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference with the
opinion dated 31.10.2023.
24. On examination of the entire materials on record, including the
Tribunal's records, there is no room for doubt that the opinion dated 31.10.2023
was passed against the petitioner subsequent in point of time after the ex parte
opinion passed on 07.09.2017.
25. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Kuddus v.
Union of India and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 604, has held that the opinion passed
by the Foreigners Tribunal is a quasi judicial order and that the principles of res
judicata applies. The said law has consistently been followed by this Court. In
this regard, reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Musstt. Amina Khatun v. Union of India, (2018) 4 GLR 643; 2018 (3) GLT 1; and
Jahir Ali v. Union of India & Ors., (2021) 3 GLR 105 : (2021) (2) GLT 596.
26. Therefore, the only fact which requires to be decided by the
learned Tribunal is as to whether the proceedee in both the cases, i.e., Case No.

Page No.# 12/14
FT(G-4)339/16, is the same as the proceeding in the previous case, i.e., Case
th
No. F.T.(8 )-GLP/571/16. The settled law is that if the proceedee in the two
cases are the same and the petitioner is the same and one person in both
cases, the Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to
transfer the subsequent proceeding relating to the opinion dated 31.10.2023 to
th
Foreigners Tribunal No.8 , Goalpara, before which the earlier proceedings had
been remanded.
27. The same is also required so as to ensure that there should not
be any conflicting orders by both the Tribunals, and to avoid the same, it would
be appropriate that the proceeding which is the subject matter of WP(C)
2125/2026 be transferred as indicated above.
28. On a perusal of the records of both the Tribunals, it is noticed
that in the order sheet, the date on which the first order was passed is not
mentioned. Moreover, the date fixed for the service report is also not
mentioned. Surprisingly, the initial order of issuing notice and subsequent orders
dated 05.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 do not contain the signature of the learned
Member. The signature of the learned Member first appears in the order dated
08.11.2016, which indicates the casual manner in which Foreigners Tribunal
th
No.8 , Goalpara, had commenced the proceedings.
29. Just for the record, the scanned copy of the order sheet
containing the initial order and orders dated 05.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 is
made a part of the record of this order. Moreover, the signatures of the learned
Member in the orders dated 08.11.2016, 12.12.2016, 25.07.2017 and
17.08.2017 do not have any rubber stamp affixed below the signatures, which
reflects the casual functioning of the Tribunal.

Page No.# 13/14
30. The records of the Foreigners Tribunal reveal that the first order
was passed on 18.01.2016 issuing notice, which was first decided by the ex
parte opinion dated 07.09.2017 was first in point of time. The same are referred
to as the "first proceedings", and the proceedings subsequently decided by the
opinion dated 31.10.2023 are referred to as the "second proceedings".
31. Accordingly, it is provided that, in the event the petitioner is
found to be the same in both proceedings, the principles of res judicata would
be applicable in respect of the proceedings of FT(G-4)339/16.
32. It is noticed that the original documents exhibited in the
subsequent proceedings are available in the TCR. It would be permissible for the

Page No.# 14/14
petitioner to apply for the return of the original documents by submitting
photocopies thereof to be retained in the records of the learned Tribunal.
33. It is made clear that in the event the proceedee in both cases
are found to be different and the petitioner is not the same and one person, it
would be permissible for the Foreigners Tribunal to pass appropriate order by
virtue of which the impugned opinion dated 31.10.2023 may be rectified so as
to enable the petitioner to once again assail the second opinion by filing a fresh
writ petition before this Court, if so advised.
34. Accordingly, as the impugned opinion dated 31.10.2023 has not
been examined on merit, there would be no necessity for this Court to set aside
the opinion as the said opinion is made subject to the fact finding by the
learned Tribunal as to whether the proceedee in both the cases are one and the
same person.
35. With these observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed
of.
36. The Registry shall expeditiously return back both the Tribunal’s
record to the concerned Tribunals along with a copy of this order to be made a
part of the records by the learned Tribunal for future reference.

JUDGE JUDGE .
Digitally signed by Champak
Rajbongshi
Date: 2026.11.05 13:20:11 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant Private Secretary