JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. U. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior special standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6; Ms. G. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. D. Baruah, learned standing counsel, Election Commission of India, appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. U. Das, learned standing counsel, NRC appearing for respondent No.4. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order 03.03.2012 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Goalpara, in F.T. Case No.2172/G/08, whereby the petitioner was held to be an illegal migrant of post-1971 stream. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 07.07.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.3/2018 arising from the F.T. Case No.2172/G/2008, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner on 26.06.2018 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC read with Order 3(1) & (2) of the Foreigners Tribunals (Amendment) Order, 2013, praying for setting aside the ex parte order dated 03.03.2012 was rejected. 3. Subsequent to the notice received by the petitioner, the petitioner had entered appearance and had filed written statement on 30.11.2010. It appears from the order of the learned Tribunal dated 03.03.2012 that the case was fixed on 29.01.2011, 24.03.2011, 16.05.2011, 21.06.2011, 02.08.2011, 06.09.2011, 17.10.2011 and 30.11.2011. On 04.01.2012 last chance was granted and on 04.01.2012 the petitioner did not appear. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a petition praying for one more adjournment and accordingly, 20.02.2012 was fixed giving last chance. On 20.02.2012 another petition was filed praying for grant of time. Considering that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal was not inclined to grant further time. 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. 5. It is relevant to note that under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, a mandate is given to the Foreigners Tribunal to dispose of a reference within a period of 60 days of the receipt of the reference from the competent authority. 6. In Sarbananda Sonowal -Vs- Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 at Paragraph 73, the Supreme Court had observed that the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. In Paragraph 63, the Supreme Court had observed that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution. In Paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the North-Eastern region and that their presence has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts. 7. The petitioner remained silent after passing of the impugned judgment for more than 6 years and, as noticed earlier, only on 26.06.2018, the application, registered as Misc. Case No.3/2018, was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. In the said application, at paragraph 5, it is stated as follows:- "5. That after marriage of the petitioner one daughter was born in the year 1991 and after the birth of the child their conjugal life was not run in a good position and at last the petitioner's husband left the house of the petitioner and the petitioner then became helpless and she began to search her husband at Guwahati and other places but she failed to found him, in this way she had passed her life with her baby. After near about 1 and half year the petitioner learnt from a reliable source that her husband has been working at Delhi so, the petitioner went to Delhi to meet her husband in the month of February 2012 and she returned Goalpara from Delhi with her husband in the month of 15th March of 2012 as such the petitioner was not able to appear before the Tribunal to adduce her evidence in her case." 8. Even assuming that there was some marital discord, it is apparent from the statements made therein that the petitioner again started living with her husband on and from 15.03.2012. There is no explanation whatsoever as to what had prevented the petitioner from challenging the orders for the last 6 years. 9. In Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali Vs. Union of India [WP(C) No.4971/2018] disposed of on 01.08.2018, this Court had observed as follows:- "It is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has been in public domain in the State of Assam and has engaged the attention of the people. Interest of the State is of paramount importance in that unabated influx has the potential to affect the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Citizenship of a person, no doubt, is a very valuable right and should be zealously guarded. There is no gainsaying the fact that a person who is alleged to be a foreigner must be given due and reasonable opportunity to establish that he is a citizen of India. However, if a person does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own risk and peril as grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. Right to a fair hearing or principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners." 10. This Court in the case of State of Assam -Vs- Moslem Mondal, (2013) 1 GauLT 809 (FB) had observed that ex parte orders can be recalled only on special and exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.