Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010030482017 2025:GAU-AS:13911-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4141/2017 RAJA MIA S/O LATE DARBESH ALI, R/O VILL-DURGANAGAR PT-I, PO-LARSINGPAR, P.S.-UDHARBOND, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI-1 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.L R MAZUMDER, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, ASSTT.S.G.I. Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 16.10.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC ; Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for ECI and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 20.04.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 3rd, Silchar, Cachar, Assam, in F.T.(D) Case No. 435/2016, arising out of Ref. I.M.D.T. Case No. 3110/98, thereby declaring the petitioner, namely, Raja Mia, to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, the nature of pleadings and evidence of the petitioner has not been referred to as it would serve no purpose except burdening the order with avoidable particulars. 4. It would suffice to mention that as per the records of the Tribunal, the petitioner who had examined himself as DW-1, has exhibited the following documents, viz., Electoral Photo Identity Card (Ext.I), voters list of 1965 (Ext.II), NRC voter detail/ Legacy Data code of 1971 (Ext.III), Kabinnama (Ext.IV), voters list of 1989 (Ext.V), Residence Certificate (Ext.VI), Certificate of Mutalli of Wakf estate (Ext.VII), APDCL money receipt (Ext.VIII), Family Identity Card (Ext.IX), Re-Issue of Lease (Ext.X), opinion dated 01.10.2012, Passed by Foreigners’ Tribunal 2nd, Cachar, in Case No. (D) 1149/2011 (Ext.XI). Page No.# 3/5 5. In fact in the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner as DW-1, reference is made only to 11 (eleven) exhibited documents. However, the Tribunal’s records reveal that 2 (two) more documents have been counter- signed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 3rd, Silchar, Cachar, Assam, being voters list of 1997 (Ext.XII) and voter list of 2008 (Ext.XIII). Moreover, the said two documents, being Ext.XII and Ext.XIII has been discussed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned opinion. 6. In paragraph no. 5 of the impugned opinion, while referring to the evidence tendered by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal had referred to the following exhibits (in seriatim as per opinion) viz., following Ext.I, Ext.XII, Ext.XIII, Ext.II, Ext.IV, Ext.VII, Ext.VIII, Ext.IX, Ext.X. In the discussion of the evidence in paragraph no. 6 the reference is found made Ext.I, Ext.XII, Ext.XIII in sub-paragraph (a) Ext.II, Ext.IV in sub-paragraph (b), Ext.I and Ext.II in sub- paragraph (c), Ext.IV in sub-paragraph (d), Ext.II, Ext.IV, Ext.I and Ext.XII in sub-paragraph (e). In paragraph no. 7 there is a reference to Ext.XII and Ext.I and in the concluding paragraph no. 8, reference is made to Ext.I, Ext.II and Ext.IV. Therefore, there is lack of any discussion on exhibit numbers III, V, VI, VII, IX and X in the impugned opinion. 7. The learned standing counsel for the FT matters, in his submission has vehemently argued in support of the impugned opinion on the ground that even if those exhibited documents would have been considered, it does not link the petitioner to his projected parents so as to demonstrate that the petitioner is bonafide citizen of the Country. 8. Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal ought to have been vigilant in referring to the exhibits and then taking a call on the maintainability of those exhibited documents to prove the claim of citizenship of the petitioner. However, Page No.# 4/5 the learned Tribunal, instead of referring to discussing of all the exhibited documents, took a short cut by referring to only few of the exhibits and leaving aside the consideration of others. 9. In the opinion of the Court, if a pleadings is made by the proceedee and documents are exhibited by the proceedee, the Tribunal has a duty to analyze the pleadings and evidence and thereafter, pass an opinion. 10. In this case the learned Tribunal took into consideration Ext.XII and Ext.XIII, which were not exhibited by the petitioner by tendering them as evidence along with his evidence-on-affidavit, and reliance was placed on them. 11. Resultantly, the opinion of the learned Tribunal is found to be vitiated by non-consideration of all the exhibited documents, and taking into consideration 2 (two) documents, being Ext.XII and Ext.XIII, which were not covered by the statements made in the evidence-on-affidavit of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned opinion dated 20.04.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal 3rd, Silchar, Cachar, Assam, in F.T.(D) Case No. 435/2016, arising out of Ref. I.M.D.T. Case No. 3110/98. 13. Resultantly, the matter is remanded back for a fresh opinion by the learned Member Tribunal Foreigners’ Tribunal 3rd, Silchar, Cachar, Assam, with a direction that only all the exhibited documents should be considered while passing a fresh opinion. 14. The petitioner, who is represented by his learned counsel is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigner’ Tribunal 3rd, Silchar, Cachar on 19.11.2025, without any requirement of issuance of a fresh notice to the petitioner for appearance. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the order and await for further instruction from the said learned Tribunal. Page No.# 5/5 15. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear within the time as indicated above, it would be open to the learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law. 16. Registry shall returned back the records of the Tribunal along with the copy of the order to be made a part of record. 17. There shall be no order as to cost. 18. The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant