Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010159092018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4934/2018 MUSSTT. KHAIMOLA BIBI W/O- FAZAR ALI, D/O- LATE HABIBAR RAHMAN, R/O- VILL JALDOBA PT-I, P.O- BAGRIBARI, P.S- KAZIGAON, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, BTC, ASSAM, PIN- 783349 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS REP. BY THE MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI- 01 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI- 01 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY- 06 4:THHE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GHY- 06 5:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GHY- 05 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Page No.# 2/15 ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 05 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN- 783370 8:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN- 783370 9:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE KAZIGAON POLICE STATION DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN- 783349 10:THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER NO. 24 GAURIPUR LAC DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R KHANDAKAR, MR. A W MONDAL,MD. I H KHAN,MR K ISLAM,MR A ALIM SK,MS. N NASRIN,MR. M U MONDAL,MR. A K AZAD Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 09-12-2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. K. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G. Page No.# 3/15 Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal, Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Jr. Govt. Advocate, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI and Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 19.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Kokrajhar, in Case No. K/FT/D/2751/12, corresponding to R/IM(D)TC/No.5021/98 by which the petitioner was declared as an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. On a receipt of the notice of the proceedings, the petitioner had appeared before the said learned Tribunal and had filed her written statement enclosing thereto 10 documents in support of her defence. It was stated that the petitioner was born and brought up at village Jaldoba Part-I under Bagribari, district Kokrajhar and was married to one Fajar Ali of village Jaldoba Part-II. The name of the petitioner is recorded in the VCDC Certificate issued on 04.02.2018 wherein the father’s name is Habibar Rahman. Her name is also recorded in the Bank Pass Book. It was stated that the name of the father of the petitioner is recorded in the NRC of 1966 showing Voter detail for which reference is also made to the certified copy of the Voters list of 1966 and 1970. The name of the petitioner appears in the Voters list of 1997 and the name of the father of the petitioner appears in the Voters list of 1985. It has been stated that the grandfather of the petitioner is Hajarat Ali, who is a citizen of India and his name is recorded in the Voters list of 1966. The petitioner has clarified that her name is Khaimala Bibi, but in some documents her name is recorded as Khymala Bibi. 4. In support of her defence, the petitioner has filed her evidence-on- affidavit, whereby reiterating the statements made in the written statement, the Page No.# 4/15 following documents were exhibited: Link Certificate dated 13.07.2017 (Ext.1); VCDC certificate dated 04.02.2018 (Ext.2); Bank Pass Book of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Ext.3); Voters list of 1985 disclosing names of Habibar Rahman, Hazrat and Mouri Bibi (translated in the English version as Mayuri Bibi by the petitioner), wife of Habibar Rahman (Ext.4); Certified copy of Electoral Roll of 1966 (Ext.5) containing the name of Habibar Rahman, son of Hazrat Ali; Electoral Roll of 1970 (Ext.6) containing the name of son of Hazrat. The petitioner has also exhibited PAN card [Ext.7(i)], PAN card of one Hiran Bala Ray [Ext.7(ii)], daughter of Gandu Ray. 5. The learned Tribunal merely referred to the exhibited documents and remark that Ext.1 and Ext.2 were rejected. Ext.3 was discarded and Ext.4, Ext.5 and Ext.6 were accepted and opined that the lineage of the petitioner was not established with the claimed father. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made his thorough submission and has filed a written lot of arguments, stating therein that the vital columns of the verification report by the Enquiry officer or the Local Verification Officer (LVO) had been left blank and accordingly, it has been stated that the report of the ERO (Electoral Registration Officer) dated 16.10.1997, relying on the LVO report without any verification has vitiated the proceedings. 7. As the petitioner was on 07.08.1991, column no.7 of the form for reference, as to whether the name of the person appears in the electoral roll prepared prior to 25.03.1971, is a mocker in the name of reference. It is also stated that notice dated 27.12.2017 issued by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the LVO report, which has not clearly stated when and where the petitioner came into India. It has also been stated that reference was made on 29.07.1998 Page No.# 5/15 by the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri where no jurisdiction under the Foreigners Act, 1946 or Ordinance (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 8. The Petitioner is a resident of Kokrajhar district. It is also stated in the written statement that the electoral roll of 1966, 1970, 1985, 1997, Bank Pass Book and the Link Certificate were not been considered by the learned Tribunal and that in the cross-examination the evidence of DW-1 could not be demolished and moreover there was no discussion regarding the exhibited documents. Accordingly, it is stated that the impugned opinion is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded for fresh trial. 9. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters, by referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Shukurjan Nessa @ Sukurjan v Union of India and ors., WP(C) 245/2019 decided on 28.02.2025, had submitted that the present reference having been made at the instance of the Electoral Registration Officer would have to be examined in the light of the reference which was made under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals), Act 1983 and that those references were required to be examined by the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals. However, the said Tribunals being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India and ors., (2005) 5 SCC 665, it is submitted that the references pending before the IM(D)T were transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal. Accordingly, it was prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Considered the submission including the written note of submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials available in the writ petition as well as in the Tribunal’s records. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the enquiry Page No.# 6/15 report was not properly filled up and therefore, the grounds for suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner has not been furnished to the petitioner, is taken up first. 12. In this case, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri, on receipt of communication dated 16.10.1997, issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, 24 No. Gauripur L.A.C., which is accompanied with a three page Local Verification Report (Annexure-A) by the Local Verification Officer. In the said LVO Report dated 08.10.1997, it has been mentioned at the first page to the effect that no document was produced during field verification. 13. Therefore, this is not a case where any enquiry was made under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 or Rules framed thereunder, where investigation is done under the authority of the Superintendent of Police (Border). The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police (Border) is the prescribed authority to make reference before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal constituted under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and Rules framed thereunder. 14. There is an important facet, which is contained in the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v Union of India & ors., 2019 (4) GLT 456, which must be referred to. We are in respectful agreement with the said judgment and therefore, paragraphs 11 to 22 thereof are quoted below:- 11. In the year 1997, Election Commission of India had undertaken an intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam as apprehensions were expressed from various quarters that the electoral rolls were infested with the names of foreigners/illegal migrants. In the course of this exercise citizenship status of as many as 3,13,046 persons whose names were in the draft voters lists were found to be doubtful and accordingly they were marked as doubtful “D” voters in the electoral rolls after local verification. 12. Legality of this exercise was challenged before this Court in HRA Choudhury Vs Election Commission of India, reported in 2002 (1) GLT 1. The challenge made was rejected Page No.# 7/15 by a Division Bench of this Court. In HRA Choudhury (supra) this Court examined the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 of the Election Commission of India laying down the procedure to carry out the exercise. 12.1. As per paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines the Electoral Registration Officer was required to consider the verification report received from the Local Verification Officer. If he was satisfied on such report and such other material/information as may be available about the eligibility of a person, he should allow his name to continue on the electoral roll. Where, however, he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, he was required to refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 as the case may be. For convenience of the Electoral Registration Officers, Election Commission devised proformas. 12.2. As per paragraph 3.9, after the case of a person was referred by the Electoral Registration Officer to the competent authority, he should wait for the decision of the relevant Tribunal in relation to that person and act according to such decision. 12.3. As per paragraph 3.10, where the relevant Tribunal decided that any such person was not a citizen of India, Electoral Registration Officer should proceed under Rule 21 A of the Registration of Electors Rolls, 1960 to have the name of such person deleted from the electoral roll before it was finally published. 12.4. This Court in HRA Choudhury (supra) held that such guidelines and decision of the Election Commission were in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution of India besides conforming to the principles of natural justice. It was held that such guidelines cannot be held to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or partiality. 13. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 is no longer in existence, the same having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665. Therefore, in so far paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 is concerned, the reference would be under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 14. The above exercise was repeated in the year 2005 with the Election Commission of India again going for intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam taking 01.01.2005 as the qualifying date. In this connection, guidelines dated 17.06.2004 were issued by the Election Commission of India. Paragraph 2.2 of the guidelines dealt with “D” voters. It was mentioned that the guidelines issued in 1997 would be followed while dealing with such category of persons. Paragraph 8 dealt with Page No.# 8/15 verification by Electoral Registration Officers. It laid down the procedure while carrying out such verification including verification by Local Verification Officer. As per paragraph 8.6, Local Verification Officer would conduct the verification by making an on the spot visit and the person concerned could adduce any one or more of the documents mentioned therein in support of his claim as a citizen of India. After due verification, the Local Verification Officer was required to submit his report in the prescribed format. Under paragraph 8.8, Electoral Registration Officer on receipt of the verification report from the Local Verification Officer should consider the same. Where he was satisfied about the eligibility of a person, he should allow the name of such person to continue on the electoral roll but where he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person he should refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 in a prepared format (Annexure-B to the guidelines dated 17.06.2004) to the competent authority for making reference to the Tribunal and await the decision of such Tribunal. 15. As pointed out by Mr. Barua, in Mameja Khatun (supra) a Single Bench of this Court directed that “D” voters should not be allowed to cast their votes with the clarification that “D” voters would include persons whose names were included in the electoral rolls but their citizenship was doubted or disputed and also those whose cases were pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. This decision of the learned Single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 114/2011 (State Vs Mameja Khatun). By the judgment and order dated 13.10.2015, the Division Bench directed Election Commission of India and other authorities to implement the directions of the Single Bench in letter and spirit. 16. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that in WP(C) No. 274/2009 filed by Assam Public Works which is pending before the Supreme Court of India wherein NRC updation exercise in the State of Assam is being monitored by the Supreme Court of India, on 25.10.2013, Supreme Court clarified that as far as persons in the “D” list are concerned, undoubtedly they were doubtful voters and therefore their names could not be included unless the NRC is updated and unless the Foreigners Tribunals declared them to be Indian citizens. 17. The Foreigners Act, 1946 is an act to confer upon the Central Government certain powers in respect of foreigners. This Act provides for the exercise of certain powers by the Central Government in respect of the entry of foreigners into India; their presence in India and their departure therefrom. Section 2 (a) defines a “foreigner” to mean a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 3 confers power to the Central Government to make orders making provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of Page No.# 9/15 foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or their continued presence therein. 17.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Central Government made the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. As per order 2 (1), the Central Government may by order refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to a Tribunal to be constituted for the purpose for its opinion. 18. Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India had issued notification dated 19.04.1958 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-(1) of Article 258 of the Constitution of India whereby the President with the consent of the State Government concerned entrusted to the Governments of each of the States mentioned therein including the State of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Another notification dated 17.02.1976 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 258 (1) of the Constitution entrusting the Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) under the Government of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 within their respective jurisdictions subject to the conditions mentioned therein which included the condition that exercise of such functions would be in respect of nationals of Bangladesh and that while exercising such functions, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) shall comply with such general or special directions as the Government of Assam or the Central Government may issue from time to time. 19. Article 258 of the Constitution deals with power of the Union to confer powers etc on States in certain cases. Clause (1) of Article 258 starts with a non- obstante clause. It says that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. Clause (3) provides for making of payment by the Government of India to the State concerned such sum as may be agreed upon or in default of agreement through arbitration in respect of any extra-cost of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of powers and duties of the Government of India conferred or imposed upon a State Government. 20. Thus, under the Central Government notifications dated 19.04.1958 and 17.02.1976, Government of Assam, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (Incharge of Police) have been delegated the power to make reference to the Foreigners Tribunal under order 2 (1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to seek opinion as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not within the meaning Page No.# 10/15 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 21. Thus from the above, what transpires is that there are two categories of “D” voters:- (i). those who were marked as “D” voters in the electoral roll by the Electoral Registration Officer following enquiry by Local Verification Officer; and (ii). those whose references are pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. 22. In so far Electoral Registration Officer is concerned the exercise undertaken by him while marking a person as a “D” voter in the electoral roll is a quasi judicial exercise. If he holds the view after examining the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer that the concerned person is not a citizen of India he is required to forward the case of that person to the competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police. If it is so forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police has to make a reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunals under order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 based on the report received from the Electoral Registration Officer. Question of making further enquiry by the Superintendent of Police in such a case would not arise because enquiry has already been made by the Electoral Registration Officer by exercising quasi judicial powers and the Superintendent of Police cannot sit over such decision of the Electoral Registration Officer. He has to forward the same by making the reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunal for its opinion. 15. The said judgment by the learned Single Judge has stood affirmed by the virtue of judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the case of State of Assam v Moslem Mondal, 2013 (1) GLT 809, and Amina Khatun v Union Of India & Ors., 2022 (4) GLT 102, to support his contention that if LVO report is blank, the reference is vitiated. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that as per the contents of para-10 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, suspecting the respondent therein as illegal migrant within the meaning of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, made a reference under Section 8 (1) of the said Act read with Rule 9 (A) of the Rules framed thereunder and accordingly, Case No. 1311/2003 was Page No.# 11/15 registered before the IM(D)T, Barpeta and the said proceeding was subsequently transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal and registered as F.T. Case No. 243/2006. Therefore, in the said case, reference was not made by Electoral Registration Officer (ERO for short). Hence, the decision of Moslem Mondal (supra), being distinguishable on facts, is not found to help the petitioner in any manner. 17. However, in the case of Amina Khatun (supra), which was decided on 28.04.2022, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), based on LVO by the ERO. But when the said writ petition was being heard and decided by a Coordinate Bench, it appears that the previous decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 456, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019, decided on 29.07.2019, were not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that under the well settled principles of stare decisis, the decision in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) would be per incurium. Accordingly, the decision rendered in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) will also not be of any help to the petitioner. 18. In the present case, the proceedings which were hitherto pending before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals were transferred by the Supreme Court of India to the Foreigners Tribunal vide directions issued in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). The said fact has been stated in para-1 of the impugned opinion. Hence, this Court would refrain from making any observations on the LVO Report in this case because learned the Foreigners Tribunals would have no power or jurisdiction to remand the reference back to the Superintendent of Police (Border) for a fresh enquiry by the LVO/ERO. Page No.# 12/15 19. Therefore, the challenge to the proceeding before the learned Foreigners Tribunal on the ground that certain paragraphs and/or columns of the Local Verification Officer’s (LVO) Report, as forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), were left blank, is held to be not maintainable on facts and in law, morefully referred to hereinbefore. The said point of determination is answered accordingly. 20. The petitioner has exhibited the certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Bagribari Revenue Circle as Ext.1, certifying that the petitioner, daughter of Habibar Rahman (father) and Mayori Bibi (mother) of Jaldoba village under Bogribari Revenue Circle, was married on 11.09.1990 to Rajar Ali, son of Sadek Ali (father) and Late. Jamiron Bibi (mother), resident of Jaldoba village under Bagribari Revenue Circle of Kokrajhar. The author of the said document has not been produced and he was not examined. Similarly, the petitioner has also exhibited a certificate issued by the Jaldoba village Council Development Committee dated 26.04.2018 to certify that the petitioner, daughter of Habibar Rahman, is inhabitant of Jaldoba Part-II village. The said document is inadmissible in evidence because of the fact that it contains use of State Emblem, being the Lion Pillar of Asoka. The unauthorized use of State Emblem, which makes the document inadmissible in evidence, is held by this Court in the case of Sajida Khatun v Union of India & ors., 2018 (4) GLT 696. In this case, the petitioner has not been able to show that the Jaldoba Village Council Committee has the authority to use the State Emblem under Rule 10(2) of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007, framed under the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. 21. The petitioner has exhibited the Bank Pass Book of Assam Gramin Bikash Bank as Ext.3. The petitioner has not been able to show any authority on Page No.# 13/15 the point that a Bank pass book which is not prior to 25.03.1971 would stand as a proof of citizenship. The Voters list that was proved by the petitioner is of 1985, is of Ext.4, which contains that name of the father of the petitioner. Even if the said exhibit is accepted, it does not prove the link of the petitioner with her projected father. Similar is the case in respect of Voter list of 1966 (Ext. 5). It may be stated that the Voters list of 1966 contains a name of a sole voter, Habibar Rahman; similarly, the Electoral Roll of 1970 (Ext.6) also contains the name of a single voter, Habibar Rahman. Therefore, the entire family including the projected mother, is not disclosed in the said Ext.5 and Ext. 6. Therefore, the said Ext. 5 and Ext. 6 does not link the petitioner to her projected father. The PAN card of the petitioner, which was exhibited as Ext. 7(i), is a document which is not shown to be a document of prior to 25.03.1971. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that she is an Income Tax payee. Therefore, in the absence of the original record being produced for proof, the contents of the PAN card, the PAN card would not stand as a proof for citizenship. In this regard we may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Mustt. Rabiya Khatun v Union of India and ors., WP(C) 4986/2016 decided on 09.02.2018, the Court has held that the PAN card is not addressed to the document and moreover the PAN card was not proved by calling the Income Tax official regarding application for PAN card. Moreover, it was also held that a PAN card contains the date of birth. Therefore, if the petitioner was aware of the date of birth, she should have mentioned it in her written statement. Therefore the PAN card [Ext.7(i)] does not link her with her projected father. 22. The petitioner has exhibited the PAN card of one Hiran Bala Ray, daughter of Gandu Ray, as Ext [7(ii)]. There is nothing on record to show as to how the PAN card of the said Hiran Bala Ray will help the petitioner. Accordingly, Page No.# 14/15 Ext. 7(ii), exhibited by the petitioner, does not prove her connection with her projected father. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no discussion of any exhibit in the impugned opinion except for a one-liner response finding of the learned Tribunal about acceptance or rejection of the said exhibits. In this regard, in the opinion of the Court, the acceptance and rejection of the exhibits in a one-liner observation of the learned Tribunal is not found to vitiate the impugned opinion in the absence of any material by the petitioner, either before the Tribunal or before this Court that any of the 8 exhibits referred to by the learned Member in the impugned opinion was incorrectly appreciated or rejected for extraneous reasons. 24. Therefore, as none of the documents exhibited by the petitioner establishes the link of the petitioner with her projected father, a mere entry in the document disclosing the name of the projected father would not be sufficient proof of linkage of the petitioner with her projected father. Therefore, as the petitioner has not been able to show that she was born to Indian parents, the challenge to the impugned opinion fails. Resultantly, the Court does not find any infirmity with the manner or form of the impugned opinion or the finding of the impugned opinion, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 25. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 26. The consequences of the said opinion dated 19.05.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Kokrajhar, in Case No. K/FT/D/2751/12, corresponding to R/ IM(D)TC / No. 5021/98 would follow. 27. The Registry shall send back the records of the learned Tribunal along Page No.# 15/15 with a copy of the order, to be made a part of the record by the learned Tribunal. 28. The writ petition stands dismissed in the manner as indicated above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant