JUDGMENT : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC for the respondent no.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the Border and FT matters, representing respondent nos.2, 4, 6 and 7; Ms. S.T. Khan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.3; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent no.5. 2) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on the basis of a report from the Electoral Registration Officer of the 85 No. Rupahihat LAC, Police Reference ‘D’ (i.e. doubtful) Case No. 94/98 was registered. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, had submitted the reference before the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Nagaon [hereinafter referred to as IM(D)T for short) for determination of the reference. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 665 , declared the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as IM(DT) Act for short], as ultra vires, and directed that all the reference pending before the IM(D)Ts be transferred for determination before the Foreigners Tribunals. As a result, the said reference case was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal, 4th, Nagaon at Juria, and the reference was numbered as FT Case No. 72/2017 [arising out of Police Ref. ‘D’ Case No. 94/98]. 3) On receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed her written statement. Thereafter, she had filed her evidence-on-affidavit and exhibited the following documents, viz., School certificate (Ext.1); certificate from Gaonburah of village- Chatian (Ext.2); certified copy of voter list of 1965 (Ext.3); certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.4); certified copy of voter list of 1985 (Ext.5); certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.6); jamabandi of land mutated on inheritance (Ext.7); registered deed (Ext.8). The petitioner had also examined Moin Uddin Ahmed, projected elder brother of petitioner as PW-2, who had filed his evidence-on-affidavit. The petitioner had also examined Nazrul Islam, the Gaonburah of village- Chatian as her witness, who was summoned by the learned Tribunal, and he had stated that he had issued a certificate (Ext.2) to the petitioner and Ext.2(1) is his signature. The petitioner had also examined Nazrul Islam, the Gaonburah of village- Chatian as her witness, who was summoned by the learned Tribunal, and he had stated that he had issued a certificate (Ext.2) to the petitioner and Ext.2(1) is his signature. As the said Ext.2 contained State Emblem, he had produced another certificate that did not contain State Emblem. The petitioner had also examined Imran Hussain Ansary, the Headmaster of Chatian M.E. School as her witness, who was summoned by the learned Tribunal, and had deposed regarding school certificate (Ext.1), issued by him. 4) The learned Tribunal, on examining the pleadings and evidence, observed that though the petitioner had filed 9 (none) documents, but only 5 (five) documents exhibited by her indicates her relationship with Md. Abdul Hamid. Out of the exhibited documents, the Transfer Certificate of School (Ext.1) and the Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.2) were held to be inadmissible due to unauthorized use of State Emblem. The gift deed deed (Ext.8) was discarded as the said deed, executed on 30.06.2010 before the Sub-Registry at Nagaon, was after the registration of the reference. The voter list of 1965 (Ext.3) was discarded as the said document did not contain constituency number, khanda number and center number. The name of sole voter is Abdul Hamid, father, Abdul Samad, age-25. The said voter list of 1970 (Ext.4) contains the sole name of Aa. Hamid, son of Aa. Samed, age 35. 5) It was observed that Ext.5, the voter list of 1985 of 85 No. Rupahihat LAC, which contained the names of Aa. Hamid, son of Aa. Samed, age 55; Jahura Khatun, wife of Aa. Hamid age 45. Ext.6 is the voter list of 1997 of 85 No. Rupahihat LAC, containing the names of Aa. Hamid, son of Samed, Jahura Khatun, wife of Hamed; Moinuddin, son of Hamod, Afia Khatun, wife of Moinuddin; Mainuddin, son of Hamid. 6) Accordingly, it was held that the exhibited documents did not contain the name of the petitioner and her brothers and sisters which are stated in her evidence. As per the remarks made in the jamabandi (Ext.7), the names of the pattadars were mutated by the Circle Officer on 28.11.1987 and therefore, the document did not help the petitioner. 6) Accordingly, it was held that the exhibited documents did not contain the name of the petitioner and her brothers and sisters which are stated in her evidence. As per the remarks made in the jamabandi (Ext.7), the names of the pattadars were mutated by the Circle Officer on 28.11.1987 and therefore, the document did not help the petitioner. Resultantly, it was held that the petitioner had failed to establish her linkage with an Indian parents and grandparents and accordingly, it was held that the petitioner had failed to discharge her burden under section 9 of the Foreigners Act. Thus, the reference was answered against the petitioner. 7) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 09.06.2025, the petitioner, namely, Mustt. Aheda Khatun @ Musstt. Aheda Khatoon, wife of Late Atabuddin @ Late Ataur Rahman of Village- Bagariguri, P.S. Juria, Dist. Nagaon, Assam, has assailed the opinion dated 12.09.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 4, Nagaon, Juria, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 72/2017 [arising out of Police Ref. ‘D’ Case No. 94/98]. 8) Thus, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 12.09.2019 after an inordinate delay of 5 years 8 months 28 days. Accordingly, heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issue of delay and laches. 9) To explain the delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the statements made in paragraph 12 and 13 of the writ petition and it was submitted that the husband of the petitioner, who was in contact with the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking steps in the case, had died on 21.12.2018. It was submitted that after the sudden death of her husband, she could not keep contact with her engaged counsel and moreover, she was also not keeping good health and suffered from various ailments and was under constant and regular treatment, for which reliance has been placed on various medical prescriptions. It was submitted that in the meantime, Covid-19 pandemic had broken out. It was submitted that only in the month of February, 2025, the petitioner came to know about the fate of the case against her and then, she applied for the certified copy of the impugned opinion on 20.02.2025, which was delivered on 27.05.2025, but due to her poverty and ailments, she took some time to file this writ petition. It was submitted that only in the month of February, 2025, the petitioner came to know about the fate of the case against her and then, she applied for the certified copy of the impugned opinion on 20.02.2025, which was delivered on 27.05.2025, but due to her poverty and ailments, she took some time to file this writ petition. 10) The said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the averments made in the writ petition do not appear to be truthful. As per the stand of the petitioner, her husband, who was allegedly in contact with her husband and taking steps in the case, had died on 21.12.2018. However, as per the learned Tribunal’s order dated 20.12.2018, the petitioner had prayed for adjournment vide petition no. 1494/18 (available at page 79 of TCR), on the ground that her husband had died. The petitioner is a signatory to the petitions and/or Tribunal attendance sheet (also called “hajira” ) filed by her on 25.01.2019, 30.03.2019 (showing the presence of petitioner and PW-2 in the Tribunal), 24.04.2019, 24.04.2019, 17.05.2019, 17.05.2019, 06.06.2019 (showing the presence of the petitioner and Nazrul Islam, Gaonburah), 28.06.2019, 09.08.2019, 12.09.2019, (available at pages 90, 91, 82, 92, 83, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 of the TCR). Thus, on 12.09.2019, when the learned Tribunal had pronounced the opinion in open Tribunal’s proceeding, the petitioner was very much present and in attendance before the learned Tribunal along with her learned counsel. 11) Moreover, as per the order dated 30.03.2019, though the petitioner (DW-1) and her witness, i.e. DW-2 had filed her evidence-on-affidavit, she and DW-2 (i.e. Moin Uddin) were examined by the learned Tribunal on 30.03.2019. 12) However, it may be clarified that on a scrutiny of the TCR, it is seen that in the examination of DW-1 by the learned Tribunal, at first page (i.e. at page 47 of TCR), the learned Tribunal has mentioned the date as 30.03.2018, but in third page of examination of DW-1 (at page 49 of TCR), the learned Member had put the date as 30.03.2019, below the signature. Similarly, in the examination of DW-2 by the learned Tribunal, at first page (i.e. at page 50 of TCR), the learned Tribunal has mentioned the date as 30.03.2018, but in the second page of examination of DW-2 (at page 51 of TCR), the learned Member had put the date as 30.03.2019, below the signature. Nonetheless, as per the order dated 30.03.2019, DW-1 and DW-2 were both examined on 30.03.2019. 13) The petitioner was very much present in the Tribunal on 06.06.2019, when her two witnesses, namely, Nazrul Islam, Gaonburah and Imran Hussain Ansary, Headmaster of Chatian M.E. Madrassa were examined. 14) Thus, the explanation for the delay and laches in assailing the impugned opinion dated 12.09.2019, as stated under oath by the petitioner at paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition, being inconsistent with the record, is held to be misleading and false. Thus, the Court is constrained to hold that the petitioner has approached this Court with tainted hands and not with clean hands. Therefore, to accept the false causes shown, would amount to giving premium to the petitioner for making untrue statements. 15) In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of her statements made in paragraph 12, the same is verified to be matters of record, which she believes to be true. The statements made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition are verified to be true to the petitioner’s knowledge. 16) To unearth the false statements made by the petitioner, the Court had to spend a lot of valuable time to carefully peruse the TCR, including (i) the orders passed therein; (ii) record of evidence of witnesses; (iii) petitions; and hajira (petitioner’s attendance-sheet) filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. 17) Thus, a totally false statement to explain the delay and laches in a belated challenge to the impugned opinion has disentitled the petitioner for a lenient view to be taken by the Court. 18) In view of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that due to willful and deliberate abstinence on part of the petitioner to challenge the impugned opinion within a reasonable time, and the challenge being made after a lapse of 5 years- 8 months- 28 days (i.e. 2097 days), the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for any interference whatsoever in respect of the opinion impugned herein. 19) Resultantly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The opinion dated 12.09.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 4th, Nagaon, Juria, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 72/2017 [arising out of Police Ref. ‘D’ Case No. 94/98], by which the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Aheda Khatun @ Musstt. Aheda Khatoon, wife of Late Atabuddin @ Late Ataur Rahman, was held to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, does not call for any interference. Resultantly, the consequences of the impugned opinion shall follow. 20) There shall be no order as to cost. 21) The Registry shall return back the TCR to the concerned learned Tribunal along with a copy of this order, to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal.