Contradictory Gaonburah evidence may rebut notice service and warrant setting aside an ex parte opinion.

The petitioner challenged an ex parte opinion dated 10 July 2020 declaring her a foreigner of the post-25 March 1971 stream.

The Foreigners Tribunal had accepted service after a notice was pasted at the petitioner’s last known residence; the process server’s report, signed by the Gaonburah, stated that she had left the village.

In the writ petition, the petitioner relied on a 2026 certificate issued by the same Gaon Pradhan confirming that she resided in Atiya village.

She maintained that she had not been informed of the Tribunal proceedings.

The State submitted that service was duly effected and that the petitioner was therefore obliged to appear.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the ex parte Tribunal opinion.

Paragraph 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 provides for service of notice by the prescribed method, including affixing notice in the circumstances contemplated by that provision.

The Court also directed the Tribunal to endeavour to dispose of the proceedings within the period contemplated by paragraph 3(14) of that Order, corresponding to paragraph 17(14) of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.

No precedent was cited.

Although the Tribunal had recorded satisfaction that notice was served in accordance with paragraph 3(5)(f), the service report indicated that the petitioner had left the village, while the same Gaonburah who witnessed the affixing of notice later certified that she was a resident of that village.

In light of this inconsistency, the Court accepted that the petitioner could have lacked knowledge of the proceedings and rejected the State’s objection that service required her to appear.

It therefore considered that she should be allowed to contest the reference.

It remanded the matter to the Foreigners Tribunal, directing the petitioner to appear by 20 November 2026, file her written statement, and be given a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence.

If she failed to appear within that time, the Tribunal could treat her as absent and pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law.

The parties were left to bear their own costs.