Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010036292017 2023:GAU-AS:12469-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5128/2017 MILAN DEB NATH S/O. LT. PARESH DEB NATH, VILL. DEVIPUR, P.O. SIBPUR, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS. THROUGH- THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GRIHA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THORUGH- THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CACHAR P.O. AND DIST. CACHAR ASSAM. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER CACHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DHAR, MRS. R RONGMEI Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 22.10.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. D. Gonmei, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent and Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Sri Milan Deb Nath, has assailed the impugned opinion dated 30.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal -5th, Silchar, in Case No. FT. 5th/44/2016, arising out of Foreigners Act Case No. 103/2012, thereby declaring that the petitioner is a foreigner and not a citizen of India. 3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, the Court does not find any requirement of referring to the pleadings and evidence on record as it is seen that apart from referring to Ext.I to Ext.V, none of the said documents have been discussed in the impugned opinion. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to extract the contents of the opinion dated 30.12.2016 hereinbelow: “This is a Reference Case sent by the S.P Cachar, Silchar under Rule 2 (1) of Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964 for giving opinion as to whether the Proceedee Sri. Milon Debnath, S/o Late Poresh Debnath of village Devipur under P.S - Lakhipur, Dist. Cachar is a Citizen of India or not. Page No.# 3/5 On receiving the Reference Case vide Foreigners Act Case No. - 103/2012, this Foreigner's Tribunal 5th, Silchar has registered a Case as F.T.5th/44/2016 and ssued notice to serve upon the Proceedee Sri. Milon Debnath, S/o Late Poresh Debnath through O/c Lakhipur P.S under Rule 3 (1) of Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964. The Proceedee appeared, filed written statements, submitted his examination- in-chief and deposited some exhibited documents in support of his case. The Proceedee has been cross examined by the A.G.P. Exhibit I is the voter list of 1966 wherein the name of the grandfather of the Proceedee was recorded. Exhibit II is the School Certificate of the father of the Proceedee showing the link of grandfather of the Proceedee. Exhibit III is the voter list of 2015 wherein the name of the Proceedee was recorded. Exhibit-IV is marked in the Legacy Data code of the father of the Proceedee for the year 1971. Exhibit-V is the Kaccha Patta of land issued in the name of the father of the Proceedee. The Proceedee filed no documents for the period from 1967 to 2014 and no explanation for the same. Hence, the Proceedee could not be able to prove his Case under Section - 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Therefore in my considered opinion, the Proceedee Sri. Milon Debnath, S/o Late Poresh Debnath of village Devipur under P.S - Lakhipur, Dist-Cachar, Assam is a Foreigner and not a Citizen of India. The Proceedee shall be kept in the Detention Camp till his deportation and his name should be struck off from all the Govt papers/documents including Voter List, Ration Card, Bank Passbook etc. Inform the DC and the S.P (B), Cachar, Silchar for their needful action.” 4. It is noticed from the hereinbefore quoted opinion that the petitioner has not referred to the contents of Ext.I, which is the voter list of 1966 containing the name of the projected grandfather of the petitioner. However, Ext.II is stated to be the School Certificate of the father of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner is document of the petitioner to his projected grandfather. However, in the absence of any discussion on the said exhibits, the Page No.# 4/5 Court is of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for passing a fresh opinion after discussing the exhibits on record. 5. It may be stated that the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has opposed the interference with the impugned opinion on the ground that in the absence of any pleadings, even if the learned Tribunal would have discussed the exhibited documents, the result would have same because in the absence of pleadings, the petitioner has not been able to connect himself with either his projected parents or grandparents. Accordingly, it is submitted that remanding the matter to the Tribunal would only delay the inevitable, i.e. the rejection of evidence and to again hold that the petitioner is a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 6. In the opinion of the Court, as the Foreigners Tribunal deals with the issue of citizenship of the persons against whom proceedings are drawn up, it is incumbent on part of the learned Tribunal to discuss the evidences and then pass an opinion, even if the evidence is not sufficient to prove any fact. 7. Resultantly, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned opinion, being devoid of any discussion on the exhibits, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned opinion dated 30.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal -5th, Silchar, in Case No. FT. 5th/44/2016 is set aside. 8. The matter is remanded back to the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal -5th, Silchar for passing a fresh opinion after examining and discussing all the exhibits. Page No.# 5/5 9. The petitioner is duly represented by the learned counsel, who is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal -5th, Silchar within the outer time limit of 24.11.2025 and by producing a certified copy of this order, await for further orders/instructions of the said learned Tribunal. 10. In the event the petitioner does not appear within the date fixed, it would be open for the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law. 11. The Registry shall send back the records of the learned Tribunal expeditiously along with a copy of this order to be made a part of record by the learned Tribunal. 12. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant