Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010010322019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/358/2019 AYNAL KHAN S/O LATE BAREK @ BAREK KHAN VILL- AGDIA PATHAR, P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA, PIN -781309. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI -6. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAPETA PIN - 781303. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BARPETA PIN - 781303. 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSION Page No.# 2/5 GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1. 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC) ASSAM GUWAHATI- 32. 7:THE FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL NO. 3 BARPETA REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL OF THE TRIBUNAL PIN - 781303 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. M R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,MR J PAYENG,SC, ECI,MR. D BARUAH,SC, NRC,MS. A VERMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 11.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. T. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Aynal Khan, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 13.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal-III, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 786(III)/2013, arising out of Reference I.M.D.T Case No. 5729/98, thereby declaring the petitioner to be an illegal migrant/ foreigner Page No.# 3/5 under section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act,1946. 3. On a perusal of the learned Tribunal’s record, it is noticed that the petitioner, who had appeared as DW-1, had exhibited ten documents as Exhibit-A to Exhibit-J, which is found mentioned in paragraph-4 of the impugned opinion. However, in paragraph 5 and 6 of the impugned opinion, the learned Tribunal has only dealt with Exhibit-B and in paragraph-7 of the said opinion, the learned Tribunal has only referred to Exhibit-J and in the entire opinion, no other document has been referred to. 4. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters has made his submission in support of the impugned opinion. 5. The Court is of the considered opinion that it is the bounden duty of the learned Tribunal to refer to the pleadings and evidence of the proceedee. In this case, the petitioner has examined himself as DW-1 and exhibited ten documents, as referred to above and he has also examined the Gaonburah as DW-2, who had issued a Gaonburah Certificate. Though in paragraph-9 of the impugned opinion, the evidence of DW-2 was discussed, but no reference was made to the exhibited documents or the contents thereof. 6. Therefore, in this case, the impugned opinion dated 13.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 786(III)/2013, is found to be vitiated by non-consideration of pleadings and evidence on records. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to hold the said opinion dated 13.09.2018 as unsustainable on facts and in law for non- consideration of eight out of ten exhibited documents. 7. Resultantly, the Court has no hesitation to set aside the said impugned Page No.# 4/5 opinion in F.T. Case No. 786(III)/2013 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-III, Barpeta. 8. It may be mentioned herein that as the entire evidence of the petitioner’s side has not been discussed in the impugned opinion, no purpose would be served in referring to the evidence as discussed in the impugned opinion. 9. Resultantly, the F.T. Case No. 786(III)/2013, is remanded back to the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal- III, Barpeta. The learned Tribunal shall restore the said proceeding to file and hear both sides and pass an appropriate order on the strength of pleadings and evidence which is available on record. 10. The petitioner namely, Aynal Khan, is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal-III, Bapreta on or before 11.09.2025, and by producing a certified copy of this order, wait for further instructions or orders from the learned Tribunal. 11. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to enter appearance before the said learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law. However, after considering all the pleadings and evidence on records. 12. Send back the records expeditiously to the concerned Tribunal along with a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant