Repeated failure to contest proceedings after vacating prior ex parte order precludes equitable relief under Article 226.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 7th, Tezpur, Sonitpur, which refused to vacate an ex parte order dated 16.04.2024 (erroneously referred to as 20.04.2025 in the impugned order).

The case originated in 2016 and previously resulted in an ex parte order on 28.09.2022.

That order was vacated on 06.12.2022, allowing the petitioner to file a written statement.

However, the petitioner delayed filing the statement until 19.07.2023 and subsequently failed to appear, leading to the second ex parte order on 16.04.2024.

The petitioner sought to vacate this second order via a petition filed on 28.07.2025, over a year later.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the vacation of the ex parte order despite a history of procedural neglect and non-appearance.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given her conduct during the Tribunal proceedings.

The court primarily applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is equitable in nature and the conduct of the petitioner is a "paramount" factor.

It further relied on the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964, specifically Order 3(14), which mandates that proceedings be completed within a period of 60 days to ensure the timely disposal of citizenship matters.

The court analyzed the petitioner’s conduct by reviewing the case timeline from the original records. It noted that the petitioner had already been granted a "fair and adequate chance" when the first ex parte order was vacated in 2022.

The court found that the petitioner showed a pattern of "wilful and deliberate" neglect: first, by taking over a year to file a written statement after being granted leave to do so, and second, by waiting more than 15 months to file a petition to vacate the second ex parte order.

By comparing this conduct against the statutory mandate of Order 3(14) of the 1964 Order (which requires 60-day disposal), the court reasoned that the petitioner’s repeated failures to contest the proceeding since 2016 barred her from receiving equitable relief.

The court affirmed the Tribunal’s refusal to vacate the ex parte order, finding the Tribunal's decision consistent with the requirement to file such petitions within a specific timeframe.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the records were ordered to be returned.