JUDGMENT Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2013 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.III, Barpeta, Assam in FT Case No.07(III)/2009 holding that the petitioner is a foreigner and an illegal migrant of post -1971 stream as well as the judgment dated 2.5.2014, rendered in W.P.(C) No.6941 of 2013 affirming the judgment of the tribunal aforementioned. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the appellant has preferred this appeal citing serious infirmities in the judgments under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Asstt. S.G.I. for the Union of India. None has appeared on the State Respondents. 4. The facts pleaded before the present appeal is that the appellant’s father name appears in the NRC of 1951 at Village Chaparbari, Mouza Paka, District – Barpeta, Assam and his mother’s name appears in the same locality in the voter list of 1970 at Serial Nos. 105 and 104 respectively against House No.29 under 53 No. Sarukhetri LAC. The appellant’s name appears along with his wife Joynab Nessa in the Voter List of 1985 at Serial Nos. 132 and 133 respectively, at House No.59 of the same locality under 46 No. Sarukhetri LACT. The name of the appellant along with his wife appears in the voter list of 1997 at Serial No.513 and 514 respectively against House No.240 under 46 No. Arukhetri LAC and is an Indian Citizen by birth. But, suspecting him to be illegal migrants from Bangladesh, a reference was made to the IMDT, Barpeta for deciding their citizenship status. On the basis of such reference, F.T. Case No.07(III)/2009 was registered. 5. In the aforesaid case before the learned Tribunal, though the appellant had filed written statement along with relevant documents in support of his case denying the allegations, but no evidence could be led by the appellant. It is submitted that he has documents to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen, but the Tribunal has declared him foreigner by ex-parte judgment and order as aforesaid. It is submitted that he has documents to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen, but the Tribunal has declared him foreigner by ex-parte judgment and order as aforesaid. It is prayed that one opportunity may be granted to him to adduce evidence, by setting aside the ex-parte order passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.III, Barpeta, Assam in F.T. Case No.07(III)/2009 holding that the petitioner is a foreigner and an in illegal migrant of post 1971 stream. 6. Apparently, there is no dispute that the appellant had received notice from the learned Tribunal, but failed to adduce evidence in due course which has resulted in ex-parte order. Let us have a look into the relevant portion of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Para-2 of the judgment is quoted below : “2. Notice was duly served on the OP first through village Gaonbura. On receipt of the said notice, one Jaynab Nessa, identifying herself to be the wife of the OP, appeared on 16.03.2009 and filed a petition showing cause of absence of the OP and prayed for time to file written statement (W/S for short). The said petition was also signed by learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner without filing any Vakalatnama. On the subsequent two dates, the OP remained absent without step. Again on 02.06.2009, learned Advocate for the OP filed a petition praying for time due to lack of documents. The said petition was also allowed. Thereafter, again the OP remained absent without taking any step continuously for the subsequent nineteen dates till 9.12.2010 from 02.06.2009. It may be mentioned that in the meantime fresh notice issued for service on the OP, as it appears from the record, was duly served personally on the OP and was returned to this Tribunal by Officer-in-charge of Sarthebari Police Station, Dist Barpeta along with the report of the police process server, on 17.04.2010.Considering the long absence of the OP after receipt of the notice and even after his appearance before this Tribunal, as mentioned above, it was ordered vide order dated 09.12.2010 that the case will proceed ex-parte. Accordingly, Local verification Officer (LVO for short) was summoned as a witness for the State petitioner but the summons issued for service on LVO was returned by police process-server that nobody knows any such person. The OP, however, remained absent without any step. Accordingly, Local verification Officer (LVO for short) was summoned as a witness for the State petitioner but the summons issued for service on LVO was returned by police process-server that nobody knows any such person. The OP, however, remained absent without any step. The record shows that fresh notices for service on the OP were issued vide order dated 15.07.2011, 03.09.2011, 07.10.2011 and 05.11.2011. The record further shows that the OP refused to receive the notice issued on 03.09.2011 and it was therefore received by OP's brother on behalf of the OP. The notice issued on 05.11.2011 was, however, personally served on the OP for his appearance before this Tribunal on 05.12.2011. The OP appeared, along with his appointed learned Advocate by filing duly executed Vakalatnama, and filed his written statement (W/S) on 05.12.2011 stating that he is a bonafide citizen of India by birth. He also filed photocopies of certain documents along with his W/S in support of his version. After submission of the W/S by the OP, LVO was again summoned as a witness for the Sate petitioner. As the summons issued for service on the LVO were not returned by police process server for quite a long period, learned Advocate for the OP filed a petition on 31.07.2012 praying for time to file documents and affidavit. The said petition was allowed and time was granted to the OP for filing relevant documents and Affidavit in support of his version. Two more such petitions were allowed. Thereafter since 30.11.2012, the OP remained absent without step for subsequent six dates and as such vide order dated 21.03.2013 this Tribunal passed an order that the case will proceed ex-parte. LVO was again summoned, who appeared on 03.05.2013. On his (LVO's) appearance, his evidence was recorded on oath on 03.05.2013. The OP, however remained absent without any step till date. 13. Considering the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that OP Mafizuddin s/o Rajab Ali of Village Chaparbari under Sarthebari PS in the district of Barpeta, entered India without authority subsequent to 25.03.1971 and hence he is, in my opinion, a foreigner and an illegal migrant of post 1971 stream. The case is decided accordingly in the affirmative and against the OP.” 7. The case is decided accordingly in the affirmative and against the OP.” 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.6941 of 2013 contending that the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside since the finding that the appellant is an illegal migrants of post 1971 stream is perverse and as such, liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Such a contention was vehemently opposed to by the learned counsel for the State respondent and Union of India. On hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court by the judgment dated 2.5.2014 had affirmed the judgment of the learned Tribunal and resultantly the proceeding initiated by appellant on invoking power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stood dismissed. 8. Still being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the Tribunal or for that matter the finding of the learned Single Judge that Mafizuddin @ Mafiz Uddin @ Md.Mafiz Uddin is a foreign national is perverse since such findings are against the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the respondents therefore, submits this court to dismiss the appeal there being no any infirmity in any of the judgments under challenge. Before proceeding further, we find it necessary to have a look at the relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge which stood challenged in the present appeal. For ready reference same is reproduce below :- “3. Mr. Handique submits that though the petitioner had filed written statement, no evidence could be led by the petitioner though he is in possession of documents to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen. His only submission is that one opportunity may be granted to him to adduce evidence, by setting aside the order impugned. 5. From the perusal of the aforesaid as also from the records, it is clear that the case was proceeded against the petitioner ex-parte on two occasions. It is also revealed that after appearance of the petitioner through his counsel on 2.6.2009, the petitioner remained absent on nineteen dates from 2.6.2009 to 9.12.2010, on which date it was ordered that the case would proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. It is also revealed that after appearance of the petitioner through his counsel on 2.6.2009, the petitioner remained absent on nineteen dates from 2.6.2009 to 9.12.2010, on which date it was ordered that the case would proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. Prior to that, after his wife had appeared on 16.3.2009 on his behalf, the petitioner did not take any step on two dates. Fresh notices for appearance were directed to be issued beginning from order dated 15.7.2011 and notice issued on 5.11.2011 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed written statement on 5.12.2011 and after taking some steps on three dates, again stopped appearing before the Tribunal on six subsequent dates on and from 13.11.2012, again necessitating passing of an order that the case will proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. 6. If a person chooses to remain absent after receiving notice and an order was passed for proceeding ex-parte, this court fails to see why a second notice is required to be given. Purpose of a notice is to enable a person to meet the allegations against him and to enable him to defend/prove his case. After receipt of notice by the notice, the Tribunal is not obliged and/or required to give a second notice to the notice and the Tribunal should proceed to decide the issue in accordance with law. In the instant case, materials on record reveal that not only once, but for the petitioner's repeated failure to appear, notice was re-issued twice to the petitioner. 7. It is more than three decades that the burning issue of foreign nationals has been in the public domain in the State of Assam. Process of determination of question of citizenship cannot be a one-way traffic, leaning only in favour of a person whose citizenship is doubted. Interest of the State is equally paramount as it affects the integrity and sovereignty of the country. No doubt, citizenship of a person is a valuable right. However, one who does not take step for safeguarding his interest does so at his own risk and peril, more so, in the context of allegation of wide-spread influx of foreign nationals from a specified territory to the State of Assam. No doubt, citizenship of a person is a valuable right. However, one who does not take step for safeguarding his interest does so at his own risk and peril, more so, in the context of allegation of wide-spread influx of foreign nationals from a specified territory to the State of Assam. It appears to the court that an idea is gaining ground that one can conveniently delay the proceeding before the Tribunals and keep the issue alive for years to come, so that he can avert deportation and at the same time, try to create evidence over the years. But for such a perception, it would have been inconceivable that one could afford to be as casual and nonchalant as the petitioner was when, otherwise, so much was at stake against him. For everything, there is time and place. Right to fair hearing or principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to absurdities, consigning, in essence, the issue to back-burner. Such an eventuality can neither be countenanced nor accepted in a court of law. 8. Materials on record demonstrate that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to discharge his burden under the Foreigners Act, 1946 that he is not a foreigner. The petitioner has miserably failed to make out a case for grant of a further opportunity. 9. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The respondents will now take consequential steps in terms of the judgment and order dated 31.8.2013 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.III, Barpeta, Assam in FT Case No.07(III)/2009. Interim order stands vacated. 10. Send back the records.” 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has strenuously argued relying upon the grounds of appeal and as submitted that the appellant who have all the necessary documents such as NRC of 1951, voter list of 1970, 1985 and 1997 which is enough to prove the fact that the appellant is a Indian citizen so he should be given a chance to prove his case, denial of which by both the Court as aforesaid, has denied his fundamental right to prove his case. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents who advanced his argument that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge has appreciated all the facts as was available on record. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents who advanced his argument that the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge has appreciated all the facts as was available on record. In pursuance to the submissions of both the parties, we have anxiously given through the impugned judgment under challenge and also given through the averment made in the pleadings as we found that the appellant was well aware about such pendency of case against him and the issue therein that his nationality has been questioned by the Legal Authority. Then what prevented the petitioner to prove his case, if he had all short of documents in his favour, is not at all explained by him. This is itself enough to discard of his contention so raised in course of his appeal which was also raised before the learned Single Judge. The appellant never tried to assert his case not to speak of any reason to show his inability to prove his case for which ultimately the learned Tribunal has decided the case ex-parte. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that he has requisite document to prove his citizenship cannot at all be considered at this stage while he has deliberately did not produce the said document, if any, in his possession at the relevant time at the appropriate place. Neither the Single Judge in the WP(C) No. 6941 of 2013 nor this Appellate Court can allow the petitioner to rely upon such document which was never produced earlier as has been held in 2010 (2) GLT 1 Moslem Mondal And Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors that : “ Writ proceeding not a substitute for a proceeding before the Tribunal - Appellants in a writ petition challenging the order of the Foreigners tribunal declaring them foreigners in an ex parte proceeding - Appellants in their writ petition bringing in certain new evidence to support their claim of being Indian citizens - Single Judge while justifying the ex parte proceeding also examining the new evidence of the appellants and holding that the same does not establish the claim of the appellants - Held, writ Court could have examined only the materials available before the Tribunal and not the new evidence.” 11. Further, in the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Moslem Mondal & Ors. Further, in the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Moslem Mondal & Ors. reported in (2013) 1 GLT 809 FB it has been held that an ex parte order cannot be set aside by a Tribunal in a regular manner and it is necessary to prove on the part of the petitioner that he was prevented by sufficient cause while appearing before the proceeding. But the petitioner nowhere pleaded as to why he could not appear before the Tribunal for years together. 12. In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that appeal is devoid of merit and there is no infirmity in the judgment under challenge. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. 13. Copy of this judgment be sent to the SP(B), Barpeta and Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to take appropriate step towards deportation of the petitioner from India and deletion of the name from the voter list as has been directed in the WP(C) No. 6941/2013. The copy of order shall also been sent to the Union of India in the Ministry of Home and State Government in the Home Department for necessary follow up action. Further copy also be furnished to Mr. S C Keyal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent for appropriate action.