Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010262492024 2025:GAU-AS:1984-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6677/2024 KARIMAN BIBI D/O- LATE MOIJUDDIN SK., W/O- LATE ANARUDDIN SK, R/O- SANTRADAHA, P.S. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOK ROAD NEW DELHI PIN- 110001. 4:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF CITIZEN ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST. BARPETA Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM PIN- 781301. 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE SORBHOG POLICE STATION DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781317 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, MS. P AHMED,N. UDDIN,R KHA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ECI,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 24.02.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for FT matters and NRC; Ms. N. Bedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for ECI; and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 02.03.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Barpeta 11th, Sarbhog in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 874/2016, arising out of P.E. No. FT Case No. 25/2014, dated 25.01.2014, by which she was declared as an illegal migrant. Page No.# 3/4 3. The learned standing counsel for the FT matters has made his submission in support of the impugned opinion. However, it is observed that except for a mere statement in the impugned opinion that the evidence of DW-1 was recorded on 04.02.2020, and that Badiyat Jamal, DW-2 was recorded on 11.02.2021, the oral evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 were not even discussed in the impugned opinion and the impugned opinion was passed merely on appreciation of the documentary evidence, being the following documents, viz. (1) certified copy of electoral roll of 1966 (Ext.1); (2) certified copy of electoral roll of 1970 (Ext.2); (3) certified copy of electoral roll of 1989 (Ext.3); (4) certified copy of electoral roll of 1997 (Ext.4); (5) certified copy of electoral roll of 2016 (Ext.5); and (6) certified copy of electoral roll of 2018 (Ext.6). However, the said documentary evidence was discussed without any reference to the oral evidence of DW-1 and DW-2, which is relevant because DW-2 projects that the petitioner is his sister. 4. Accordingly, we find that no purpose will be served by re-appreciating the evidence so as to find out whether the opinion is otherwise sustainable or not, because the learned Tribunal has not discussed the oral evidence of DW-1 and DW-2. Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned opinion suffers from the vice of non-consideration of the oral evidence, rendering it perverse. 5. Accordingly, as the impugned opinion dated 02.03.2021 is found vitiated by way of perversity by non-discussion of oral evidence of DW-1 and DW-2, the Court is inclined to set aside and quash the impugned opinion dated 02.03.2021, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta 11th at Sarbhog in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 874/2016. 6. Resultantly, the said proceeding stands remanded back to the learned Page No.# 4/4 Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta 11th, Sarbhog to pass a fresh opinion on the basis of materials available on record, specifically by discussing the oral evidence of DW-1 and DW-2. 7. The petitioner is directed to appear before the said learned Tribunal on or before 24.03.2025 and by producing a certified copy of this order, await for further instruction from the said learned Tribunal. 8. It is made clear that as this order is passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner to deemed to have knowledge of this order and accordingly, she would not be entitled to any fresh notice for appearance before the learned Tribunal. 9. If the petitioner, namely, Kariman Bibi does not appear before the learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to proceed ex parte against the petitioner and pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law. 10. Registry shall send back the Tribunal records expeditiously. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant