JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Sarma, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel, Election Commission of India, appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior special standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, assisted by Mr. A. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 & 7 and Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel, NRC, appearing for the respondent No.4. 2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 14.07.2009 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara as well as the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara in F.T. Case No.1220/G/06 and prays for remand of the case to the learned Tribunal to contest the proceeding. 3. Pursuant to a notice issued by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had entered appearance and after last chance was granted to her to file her written statement, she submitted her written statement on 18.10.2008. The petitioner did not take steps at the stage of evidence and accordingly, the petitioner was held to be an illegal migrant. 4. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 provides that if in any case not falling under Section 8, any question arises with reference to the Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description, the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall lie upon such person. 5. It is relevant to state that the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the order dated 14.07.2009 by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP(C) No.657/2016. The said writ petition was dismissed by judgment & order dated 11.02.2016. 6. Mr. 5. It is relevant to state that the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the order dated 14.07.2009 by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP(C) No.657/2016. The said writ petition was dismissed by judgment & order dated 11.02.2016. 6. Mr. Mahmud has submitted that subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Order 3A(1) & (2) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Amendment Order, 2013 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 14.07.2013 as this Court had observed in the judgment & order dated 11.02.2016 that the petitioner had not availed the remedy of setting aside of an ex parte order by filing an application before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in passing the order dated 15.03.2016 rejecting the said application on the ground of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 11.02.2016, he submits. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahmud that there was a confusion in regard to the identity of the petitioner with that of another person with the same name as well as same name of their husbands and, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered this aspect of the matter. 7. Mr. Nair has submitted that this petition is misconceived as after dismissal of the writ petition upholding the order of the learned Tribunal, in absence of any liberty granted, the petitioner did not have any scope for filing any application before the learned Tribunal for setting aside the ex parte order. 8. The other learned counsel appearing for the respondents endorse the submission of Mr. Nair. 9. In the judgment & order dated 11.02.2016, by which the writ petition was dismissed, this Court had stated as follows:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not declared as a D voter at any point of time. Even till today, she has not been declared as a D Voter. Therefore, declaration of the Tribunal that petitioner is a foreigner is untenable. On the other hand, he submits that there is another D voter by the same name as that of the petitioner. Perhaps because of such confusion, Tribunal had arrived at the aforesaid conclusion which is clearly erroneous on fact. Therefore, declaration of the Tribunal that petitioner is a foreigner is untenable. On the other hand, he submits that there is another D voter by the same name as that of the petitioner. Perhaps because of such confusion, Tribunal had arrived at the aforesaid conclusion which is clearly erroneous on fact. On a query by the Court as to why petitioner has approached this Court after more than 6 years, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly she is an illiterate lady unable to comprehend the serious consequences of her default and secondly, she had no knowledge about the impugned order till 30.12.2015. Only when police started searching for her, she came to know about the impugned order. Therefore, Court may intervene in the matter and grant some relief to the petitioner. Mr. Bhagawati, learned Govt. Advocate however opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that full opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal. But there was deliberate default on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner cannot take advantage of her own default. He also submits that reliance placed by the petitioner on the voters list to show that petitioner has not been declared as a D voter is misplaced and untenable in as much as the document relied upon is of the year 2014 whereas Tribunal passed the order on 14.07.2009. There is no explanation at all for the inordinate delay in approaching Court. In such circumstances, he submits, no case for interference by the Court is made out. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal are summary in nature. It is not a full fledged civil proceeding like a civil suit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 has held that the procedure adopted under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. All that the Court is required to see at this stage is whether a fair opportunity was provided to the noticee, in this case the petitioner. When the petitioner had received the notice of the Tribunal and had engaged counsel to defend herself, subsequent repeated default that too without any sufficient cause cannot be accepted. All that the Court is required to see at this stage is whether a fair opportunity was provided to the noticee, in this case the petitioner. When the petitioner had received the notice of the Tribunal and had engaged counsel to defend herself, subsequent repeated default that too without any sufficient cause cannot be accepted. Moreover, the impugned order was passed as far back as on 04.07.2009. Writ petition has been more than 6 (six) years thereafter. Explanation given by the petitioner that she is an illiterate lady which prevented her from approaching the Court earlier would be of no assistance to her in as much as she had engaged a counsel to defend herself in the proceeding before the Tribunal. Therefore second explanation given that she came to know about the order of the Tribunal only on 30.12.2015 also cannot be accepted because she was aware of the proceeding before the Tribunal. In so far merit of the case is concerned, we are not inclined to enter into that aspect of the matter since on due consideration of the materials placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion which certainly is a possible conclusion based on the materials on record. The issue relating to recall of ex-parte order has already been gone into by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal, reported in 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 809. Only on special or exceptional circumstances, ex-parte orders can be recalled and not in a routine manner. Thereafter, the Central Govt. has issued notification providing for filing of application seeking recall of ex-parte order within specified period. However, petitioner has not availed any such remedy. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition to warrant any interference with the order of the Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed.” 10. A perusal of the said judgment & order goes to show that the explanation given by the petitioner for the inordinate delay of 6(six) years in approaching the Court on the ground that she is an illiterate lady did not find favour of the Court as the petitioner had engaged a counsel to defend her proceedings before the Tribunal. A perusal of the said judgment & order goes to show that the explanation given by the petitioner for the inordinate delay of 6(six) years in approaching the Court on the ground that she is an illiterate lady did not find favour of the Court as the petitioner had engaged a counsel to defend her proceedings before the Tribunal. The other explanation that she came to know about the order of the Tribunal only on 13.12.2015 was also not accepted because she was aware of the proceedings before the Tribunal. 11. This Court had also considered the aspect relating to setting aside of an ex parte order. Relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal, reported in 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 809, it was observed that ex parte orders can be recalled only on special and exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner. The observation made by the Court that the petitioner had not availed any such remedy has to be understood in the context in which it was made. The Division Bench of this Court had not accepted the explanation furnished by the petitioner for approaching this Court 6(six) years after the ex parte order was passed. That apart, this Court had upheld the order of the Tribunal dated 14.07.2009. Therefore, the learned Tribunal could not have set aside the ex parte order holding that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for not appearing before the Tribunal when the ex parte order came to be passed. 12. The order dated 14.07.2009 having been upheld by this Court in WP(C) No.657/2016, it is not understood how the petitioner could have again prayed for setting aside the order dated 14.07.2009. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Tribunal was correct in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Order 3A(1) & (2) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Amendment Order, 2013. 14. In view of our aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this application and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.