WP(C) 2633/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. A. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Han dique, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears for the responde nt No.3 despite service of notice. Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel, appears for the respondent No.4, the Union of India. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the lea rned Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1, Dhubri, in FT Case No.1041/D/10 arising out of R eference Case No.FT/1542/D/07, whereby the petitioner was held to be an illegal migrant, who had entered into India after 25.03.1971 without any documents. The petitioner had entered appearance on receipt of notice issued by the learned Tribunal and had filed written statement denying the allegations levelled in th e Reference Case No.FT/1542/D/07, forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Dhu bri. The case set out by the petitioner is that the petitioner was born at Jabba lpur, Mnadhya Pradesh and had passed her H.S.L.C. examination in the year 1995. Her father is a permanent resident of Jabbalpur and also is an employee of the L ife Insurance Corporation of India. Her marriage was solemnized with one Raj Kum ar Goswami, who is a resident of Ward No.10, Dhubri, Assam. Record that has been called for from the learned Tribunal has been received by t his Court. A perusal of the record indicates that the present petitioner was pre sent on 15.02.2011 and her engaged advocate had filed the written statement alon g with photocopies of certain documents. By the order dated 15.02.2011, 03.03.20 11 was fixed as the date for hearing. On 03.03.2011, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and as such, finding no good ground to adjourn the hearing, the learned Tribunal proceeded to hear the learned Assistant Government Pleader and fixed 04.03.2011 for judgment. Accordingly, on 04.03.2011 the judgm ent was pronounced holding the petitioner to be an illegal migrant who entered i nto India after 25.03.1971 without any valid document. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had c ontested the proceedings by engaging her counsel and, therefore, she legitimatel y expected that the learned counsel would have taken steps on the date of hearin g. She had filed an application on 03.05.2011 to recall the exparte judgment dat ed 04.03.2011 and to give an opportunity to file additional written statement. T he learned Tribunal by an order dated 05.05.2011 had also rejected the said appl ication holding that as the date of hearing was fixed on 03.03.2011, by order da ted 15.02.2011, when the petitioner was personally present in the Court, it was not material even if the counsel had not informed her about the date of hearing. Mr. Sarma submits that there was no deliberate laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitione r deserves an opportunity to present her case before the learned Tribunal. Mr. J. Handique as well as Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the res pondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, submit that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal by setting aside the orders dated 04.0 3.2011 as well as 05.05.2011 with a direction to the learned Tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with law. From the materials on record, it appears that notice was issued to the petitione r by the learned Tribunal on 06.01.2011 fixing 15.02.2011 as the date fixed for submitting written statement. The petitioner had entered appearance on 15.02.201 1 and had also filed written statement. In the circumstances, her absence on 03. 03.2011, cannot be held to be intentional, as has been recorded by the learned T ribunal. Furthermore, it has also been submitted by Mr. Sarma, that the learned counsel for the petitioner also did not take appropriate steps on the date of he aring and in such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that th e petitioner is entitled to place her case before the learned Tribunal. Taking that view, the order dated 04.03.2011 is set aside and quashed. Although there is no specific prayer to set aside the subsequent order dated 05.05.2011, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by moulding the relief, the order dated 05.05.2011 is also interfered with. The learned Tribunal is now dir ected to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner will personally appear before the learned Tribunal on 20.01.2012. Additionally, she may also engage a counsel to appear along with her on that pa rticular date and other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the learned Tribunal . Lower Court records be sent back to the learned Tribunal so as to reach the Trib unal well ahead of the date fixed. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.