Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010118062016 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5455/2016 SALEHA BEGUM W/O. ABDUL KADIR, D/O. LT. NAJIM UDDIN, VILL. BAKARSHAL, P.O. JABAINPUR, P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B KARIMGANJ DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE KARIMGANJ POLICE STATION DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H R CHOUDHURY, MR. H R A CHOUDHURY,MR. J M SULAIMAN Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, ASSTT. S.G.I. Linked Case : WP(C)/6735/2016 MOYNUL HOQUE S/O. ABDUL LATIF VILL. JHARNARCHAR PART-IV P.O. JARUARCHAR P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI -6. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF KOKRAJHAR DIST. AT KOKRAJHAR P.S. and DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B OF KOKRAJHAR DIST. AT KOKRAJHAR P.S. and DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR DIST. AT HATISINGIMARI P.S. and DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR DIST. AT HATISINGIMARI Page No.# 3/7 P.S. and DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR.K RAHMAN Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 06-02-2026 (K.R. Surana, J) This writ petition has been listed for consideration along with 7 (seven) other matters. 2. The learned counsel for all the appearing parties in the series of eight cases are ad-idem on the point that the present writ petition has no common issue with the other writ petitions, save and accept that the opinion of the learned Foreigners Tribunal have been assailed in all the cases. Accordingly, with consensus at the Bar, this matter has been taken up separately. 3. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the NRC, Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned CGC and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate. 4. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 07.09.2016 passed in F.T. Page No.# 4/7 Case No. 6th Dhubri 1-242/2015 corresponding to Ref No – 1473/D/07 and Tr. No. 1690/BLP/11 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 6th, Dhubri at Bilasipara, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner 5. In view of the order which is proposed to be passed, there is no requirement to refer to the facts and evidence of the case. 6. It would suffice to mention that the petitioner, receipt of notice appeared and filed his written statement and to support the same, the petitioner had filed his evidence-on-affidavit and exhibited the following documents: (i) Voter ID Card (Ext.A); (ii) Photocopy of Link Certificate issued by Secretary, Joruar Char Gaon Panchayat (Ext.B); (iii) Photocopy of another Link Certificate issued by Secretary, Joruar Gaon Panchayat (Ext.C); (iv) Admit Card of H.S.L.C. Examination, 1988 (Ext.D); (v) Certified Copy of Voter list of 1989 (Ext.E); (vi) Certified Copy of Voter list of 1977 (Ext.F); (vii) Certified Copy of Voter list of 1970 (Ext.G); (viii) Certified Copy of Voter list of 1966 (Ext.H); (ix) Photocopy of Voter list of 1961 in the name of the purported grandfather of the petitioner (Ext.I); (x) NRC of 1951 (Ext. 3). 7. The learned Tribunal in its finding has held that the Voters list, which are Ext. Nos. E, F, G and H were proved. However, the name of the purported grandfather appearing in the Voter list of 1966 and 1970, Raj Ali Mallik, was not proved because in the evidence-on-affidavit the Secretary, Joruar Char Gaon Panchayat had stated that he had stated that he had issued Panchayat certificate based on the Voters list in the name of Raj Ali Mollik, the purported grandfather of the proceedee. The Panchayat Certificate (Ext.C) was discarded Page No.# 5/7 owing to error of spelling in the name i.e. Raj Ali Mallik as projected by the petitioner and Raj Ali Mollik as written in the evidence-on-affidavit by Abdul Malik, Secretary of the said Gaon Panchayat. 8. The Court takes note of the fact that apart from reference to the deposition of the Secretary of the Panchayat, his evidence as DW-2 was not discussed in the opinion. Moreover, the records reveal that at page-67 of the Tribunal’s record is the evidence of one Eunus Ali Ahmed, Senior Assistant, Election Office, Hatsingimari, who exhibited his Authorization letter as Ext.3 and he has deposed by stating that he had appeared before the Tribunal with original records and that Ext.A, Ext.E, Ext.F, Ext.G and Ext.H were issued by their Election Office, which is wholly similar with the original official record of the Voters list. There is no discussion of the said evidence. 9. The exhibited Voters list referred above were written in Assamese language but in the Gaon Panchayat Certificate English translation, the name of the grandfather of the petitioner is made. Therefore, a minor spelling error of ‘Raj Ali Mallik with Raj Ali Mollik’ is not found sustainable because the entries in the Voters list of 1966 and 1970, contain the name of the grandfather and the projected grandmother of the petitioner and in the Voter list of 1970, contains the name of Abdul Latif, who is the projected father of the petitioner. 10. We also take note of the fact that there is no cross-examination of the DW-1, DW-2 or DW-3. However, at the back page of the evidence-on-affidavit of the DW-1 and DW-2 contains an endorsement authenticated by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 6th, Bilasipara to the effect that the deponent has Page No.# 6/7 signed the affidavit having understood the contents of it. 11. Resultantly, due to non-discussion of the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 and the discarding of the exhibited Voters list on the ground of spelling of projected grandfather of the petitioner, given in the Panchayat Certificate (Ext.C), requires a reconsideration by the learned Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the impugned opinion dated 07.09.2016 passed in F.T. Case No. 6th Dhubri 1-242/2015, corresponding to Ref No – 1473/D/07 and Tr. No. 1690/BLP/11, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 6th, Dhubri at Bilasipara, is found to be vitiated by perversity owing to lack of discussion on the evidence of the petitioner as DW-1, the evidence of the Gaon Panchayat as DW-2 and the evidence of the Senior Assistant in the Election Office, whose oral evidence was recorded on 26.05.2016. 13. Resultantly, the said impugned opinion dated 07.09.2016 is hereby set aside. 14. The matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication of the evidence of the petitioner in accordance with law. 15. The petitioner, who is duly represented by his learned counsel shall appear before the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 6th, Dhubri at Bilasipara, within 06.03.2026 by producing a certified copy of the order awaiting for further directions to be issued by the said learned Tribunal. Page No.# 7/7 16. The Registry shall expeditiously send back the records back to the learned Tribunal. 17. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant