JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The WP(C)/4229/2025, WP(C)/ 4200/2025 and WP(C)/4232/2025 along with the respective interlocutory applications are taken up together as these matters are analogous matters arising out of the same cause of action. The petitioners are Safikul Ali, Rubi Begum and Harish Ali respectively. These writ petitions are filed against the following orders/opinion passed by the Learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh 1st, being:- 1. Opinion dated 30.04.2021 in FT Case No.112/2018 ( arising out of P.E. No.142/2018) and order dated 15.02.2024 in Review Petition No.135/2022. 2. Opinion dated 28.07.2021 in FT Case No.115/2018 ( arising out of P.E. No.145/2018) and order dated 15.02.2024 in Review Petition No.134/2022. 3. Opinion dated 30.04.2021 in FT Case No.114/2018 ( arising out of P.E. No.144/2018) and order dated 15.02.2024 in Review Petition No.136/2022. 3. The aforementioned petitioners are aggrieved by the opinion of the Tribunal as the petitioners have been declared as foreigners of post-1971 stream. It is pertinent to mention that all the petitioners are siblings. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Safiqul Ali [WP (C)/4200/2025], on receipt of notice entered appearance through his engaged counsel before the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh in connection with FT case No.112/2018 (P.E. No.142/2018) and filed written statement. Meanwhile, owing to the nationwide lockdown commencing from 24.03.2020, the learned engaged Counsel failed to take steps and vide an ex- parte order dated 30.04.2021, the petitioner was declared a foreigner. The petitioner then approached the Tribunal with prayer to vacate the ex-parte order, but the petitioner's prayer was rejected vide order dated 15.02.2024 in Review Petition No.135/2022. Aggrieved by the ex parte order dated 30.04.2021 in FT case No. 112/2018 and the order dated 15.02.2024, the petitioner is before this court. 5. Rubi Begum, who is the petitioner of WP (C)/ 4229/2025 is aggrieved by a similar opinion, dated 15.02.2024 whereby the petitioner's prayer to vacate the ex parte order was not considered. The petitioner, vide opinion dated 28.07.2021 in connection with FT case No.115/ 2018 (PE No.145/2018), was declared a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 6. 5. Rubi Begum, who is the petitioner of WP (C)/ 4229/2025 is aggrieved by a similar opinion, dated 15.02.2024 whereby the petitioner's prayer to vacate the ex parte order was not considered. The petitioner, vide opinion dated 28.07.2021 in connection with FT case No.115/ 2018 (PE No.145/2018), was declared a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 6. In a similar manner, the petitioner, Harish Ali who has preferred the WP (C) No. 4232/2025, is aggrieved by a similar order, dated 15.02.2024 passed in Review Petition No.136/2022, whereby the petitioner’ prayer to vacate the ex parte order dated 30.04.2021 passed in FT case No.114/2018 (arising out of P.E. No. 144/ 2018 ) was rejected. 7. All the petitioners are at present lodged at the Matia transit camp at Goalpara. 8. It is submitted that all the petitioners are genuine Indian citizens, but the engaged counsel of the petitioners had failed to take steps after lockdown which was imposed on 24.03.2020. The petitioners belong to the indigenous Assamese Muslim community. All the petitioners who are siblings have been picked up and forwarded to the detention center. The petitioners are siblings and the petitioners Safikul Ali, Rubi Begum and Harish Ali are the children (sons and daughter) of Sabu Ali @ Chabu Ali. They belong to indigenous Assamese Muslim Community and are residents of Village –Bor Abhoipuria Tengakhat, PS- Tengakhat and district- Dibrugarh. The petitioners have earnestly prayed for an opportunity to contest the proceedings and place the documents required to prove their citizenship. All the petitioners have submitted the following documents: i) School certificate, ii) EPIC iii) Voters list of 1970, iii)Voters list of 2008, iv)Final NRC in his mother's name, v) Aadhaar card vi)Certificate issued by Gaon burah All the documents are annexed along with the writ petitions. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. Matters, Mr. G. Sarma, laid stressed in his argument that the school certificates cannot be considered to be link documents. It appears that some schools are even non-existent. The Gaonburah’s certificate in favour of petitioners’ mother Hafiza Begam does not establish any linkage. The voters list of 2008 and voters list of 1970 cannot be connected at all. The voters list of 2008 reflects the petitioners’ parents' names, whereas the voters list of 1970 remains vague as no linkage could be established. 10. The Gaonburah’s certificate in favour of petitioners’ mother Hafiza Begam does not establish any linkage. The voters list of 2008 and voters list of 1970 cannot be connected at all. The voters list of 2008 reflects the petitioners’ parents' names, whereas the voters list of 1970 remains vague as no linkage could be established. 10. It is further submitted that the lockdown was imposed way back in 2020 and was lifted after a year. The conduct of the petitioners reveal that, despite their knowledge about a case pending against them, they have neglected to contest the proceeding. The petitioners could not submit a single voters list linking them in any manner with their parents or grandparents. There is not a single linkage document. The final NRC cannot be considered to be a document and is not evidence per se. The learned Tribunal has correctly passed the orders impugned by the petitioners and thus the aforementioned writ petitions is liable to be dismissed as the petitions are devoid of merits. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the bar. 12. It appears that all the petitioners are detained at the Matia Transit Camp, Goalpara. It is submitted on behalf of all the petitioners that their father's name is Sabu Ali and mother's name is Hafiza Begum. Their grandfather was late Siraj Uddin Ali. The petitioners’ father was declared a foreigner vide order dated 03.03.2010 in connection with FT Case No. 362/2006, which was upheld by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2016 passed in WP(C) No. 3602/2010. 13. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law as the Tribunal did not consider any alternative arrangement. The petitioners were not accorded an opportunity to produce their documents and contest their proceeding and when the ex-parte order was passed, the review petition was also not considered. The ex-parte orders, which were not vacated, has prejudiced the petitioners. They have categorically mentioned in their written statements that the paternal grandmother of their petitioner, Halima Begum, took shelter under the Mouzadar of Tengahat Mouza in the year 1945 along with her first husband, Jalal-Uddin, who died in the year 1950. Subsequently, Halima Begum got married to Siraj Uddin in the year 1959 and she was blessed with her sons Munu Ali and Sabu Ali. Subsequently, Halima Begum got married to Siraj Uddin in the year 1959 and she was blessed with her sons Munu Ali and Sabu Ali. Shiraj- Uddin died in the year 1975 and after the death of Shiraj Uddin Halima Begum continued to reside under the Mouzadar and in this respect, the Mouzadar submitted an information to the officer-in-charge of Tengakhat PS on 08.05.1992. It is further submitted that at a young age, Sabu Ali came to Dibrugarh in connection with work and started to reside at Santipara and his marriage was solemnized with Smt Hafiza Begum, daughter of Badiur Jamal, a resident of Rajapukhuri, Sunari, Gaon Panchayat, on 05.03.1996. Inadvertently, the certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat depicts the year of marriage as 1983 instead of 1976. It is further submitted that the name of Badiur Jamal appears in the voters list of 1970 and Badiur Jamal is the father of the petitioners' mother and this establishes the linkage of the petitioners' mother with her father, Badiur Jamal which proves that the petitioner's mother is also an Indian citizen. 14. Learned Standing Counsel for FT matters has raised objection stating that the voters list of 1970 reflecting the petitioners' maternal grandfather's name cannot be interlinked with the voters list of 2008 to prove the petitioners' citizenship. Although the submissions of the respondent is taken into consideration, it appears that an opportunity may be accorded to the petitioners to submit any other document to establish their citizenship. 15. This court has taken into consideration the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were unable to appear immediately before the Tribunal and contest the proceedings as lockdown was imposed during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The period of limitation in filing the petitions/ applications/suits/appeal of quasi proceeding was extended for 90 days w.e.f. 01.03.2022 by the Supreme Court in connection with Re-Cognizance for extension of Limitation (Order dated 23.03.2020, suo moto WP (C) No.3/2020 . The impugned orders were passed on 28.07.2021 and 30.04.2021 in FT Case Nos. 112, 114 and 115 of the year 2018. The orders were passed within the period of Limitation extended by the Supreme Court in Re-Cognizance for extension of Limitation (supra). 16. The impugned orders were passed on 28.07.2021 and 30.04.2021 in FT Case Nos. 112, 114 and 115 of the year 2018. The orders were passed within the period of Limitation extended by the Supreme Court in Re-Cognizance for extension of Limitation (supra). 16. In the wake of the foregoing discussion, it is held that although the petitioners’ father was declared a foreigner vide order dated 03.03.2010 in FT Case No.362/2006, {upheld by this Court in WP(C) No.3602/2010}, the petitioners may be allowed to appear before the Tribunal and contest the proceedings by submitting any other documents to establish their linkage. This court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, cannot deal with the documents which the petitioners have submitted along with the writ petitions and which they have failed to submit before the Tribunal. While submitting the written statements, the petitioners have annexed photocopies of certain documents along with their written statements. The petitioners have also submitted that they have never visited any foreign land like Pakistan or Bangladesh. Their family members earned their livelihood as masons in India. In view of the foregoing discussions, the following opinion: 1. Opinion dated 30.04.2021 in FT Case No.112/2018 (arising out of P.E. No.142/2018) and order dated 15.02.2024 in Review Petition No.135/2022, 2. Opinion dated 28.07.2021 in FT Case No.115/2018 (arising out of P.E. No.145/2018) and order dated 15.02.2024 in Review Petition No.134/2022, and 3. Opinion dated 30.04.2021 in FT Case No.114/2018 (arising out of P.E. No.144/2018) and order dated 15.02.2024 in Review Petition No.136/2022, are all set aside, allowing an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the aforementioned cases. 17. As the petitioners are detained in the detention camp, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners namely, Safikul Ali, Rubi Begum and Harish Ali be released on bail, subject to compliance of the following conditions: a. The family members of the petitioners shall shall appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh and shall furnish bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each with 1(one) solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the said authority. b. Before release of the petitioners on bail, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh shall obtain the biometrics of the iris of both eyes, the fingerprints of both hands and the photographs of the petitioners. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each with 1(one) solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the said authority. b. Before release of the petitioners on bail, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh shall obtain the biometrics of the iris of both eyes, the fingerprints of both hands and the photographs of the petitioners. c. The said authority shall also obtain necessary information and documentation as required under the Rules from the petitioners for securing their presence. d. Thereafter, steps shall be taken by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh, to have the petitioners released from the Transit Camp within 3(three) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 18. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Tribunal within 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and contest their proceedings and on their failure to appear before the learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioners as absent on call and proceed in accordance with law. 19. The writ petitions stands disposed of.