JUDGMENT AND ORDER : (K.R. Surana, J.) Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L.Devi, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for FT, Border matters and NRC for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 3; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl.Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.5. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Sona Bhanu @ Sona Bhanu Khatun, has assailed the opinion dated 21.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal- 8th, Barpeta, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 125/2017, arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 2467/97, thereby declaring her to be an illegal migrant/foreigner under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, having illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971. 3. On service of notice, the petitioner had filed her written statement. In support of her defence, the petitioner had examined the following 6 (six) witnesses:- a. Sona Bhanu, the petitioner, as DW-1. b. A. Latif Khan, projected brother of petitioner as DW-2. c. Jahura Bibi, projected elder sister of petitioner as DW-3. d. Kaddus Ali, husband of the petitioner as DW-4. e. Abul Kalam, Gaonburah of village- Chengelia as DW-5. f. Sri Mohodar Deka, Gaonburah of village- Belbari as DW-6. 4. The DW-1 had exhibited 6 (six) documents as Ext.A to Ext.F; DW-2 had exhibited 1 (one) document as Ext.G; DW-3 had exhibited 3 (three)documents as Ext.H. Ext.I and Ext.J; DW-4 had exhibited 2 (two) documents as Ext.K and Ext.L; DW-5 had exhibited 1 (one) document (Ext.F); and DW-6 had exhibited 1 (one) document (Ext.E). The documents exhibited are as under:- a. Certified copy of voter list of 1965 (Ext.A); b. Certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.B); c. Certified copy of voter list of 1997 (Ext.C); d. Certified copy of voter list of 1990 (Ext.D); e. Gaonburah’s certificate of village- Belbari Pathar (Ext.E); f. Gaonburah’s certificate of village- Chengaliya (Ext.F); g. Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) of DW-2 (Ext.G); h. Voter List of 1965 (Ext.H); i. Gaonburah’s Certificate (Ext.I); j. EPIC of DW-3 (Ext.J); k. EPIC of DW-4 (Ext.K); l. Voter list of 1997 (Ext.L). 5. 5. In the opinion, the learned Tribunal had referred to evidence of only 4 (four) DWs, i.e. DW-1 to DW-4 and failed in its duty to refer to the evidence of DW-5 and DW-6. Moreover, it is seen that while appreciating the evidence of DW-3, the learned Tribunal had made an error by relating Ext.J, Ext.H and Ext.K to DW-3. The DW-5 and DW-6 had exhibited their certificates, which were already exhibited by the petitioner as Ext.F and Ext.E respectively. However, the learned Tribunal had made an error in failing to discuss the evidence of DW-5 and DW-6. Such an error is found to have vitiated the opinion assailed in this writ petition. 6. It is well settled principle of trial before the Foreigners Tribunals that the said learned Tribunals should discuss the evidence of all the witnesses and should analyze all the documentary exhibits. However, in this case, by not appreciating the exhibits in its proper perspective, as discussed in paragraph 4 above, by wrong reference to the documents exhibited by DW-3 and DW-4 and by not discussing the evidence of DW-5 and DW-6 at all, the impugned opinion is found to be vitiated by perversity in misreading the evidence of DW-3 and DW-4 and by not considering the two vital witnesses, i.e. the Gaonburahs, i.e. DW-5 and DW-6. 7. This Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction and not appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Tribunal is found to have committed a jurisdictional error, the matter has to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Court has no hesitation in remanding the matter for a fresh opinion by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal- 8th, Barpeta, Assam. In order to facilitate a fresh opinion to be passed, the impugned opinion against the petitioner, namely, Sona Bhanu @ Sona Bhanu Khatun, being opinion dated 21.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal- 8th, Barpeta, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 125/2017, arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 2467/97 is hereby set aside. 9. The matter is remanded back to the said learned Tribunal on following terms:- a. To re-hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and to pass a fresh opinion on the basis of evidence already on record. 9. The matter is remanded back to the said learned Tribunal on following terms:- a. To re-hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and to pass a fresh opinion on the basis of evidence already on record. b. It is expected that the learned Tribunal shall prepare a list of exhibits, and correctly mention the respective DWs who have exhibited the particular exhibit(s) and re-appreciate the evidence on record. c. Needless to mention that the learned Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within time as permissible under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners Tribunals Order. 10. The petitioner, namely, Sona Bhanu @ Sona Bhanu Khatun, who is duly represented by her learned counsel, shall appear before the said learned Tribunal on or before 30.05.2026, and by producing a certified copy of this order, await for further order(s) to be passed by the said learned Tribunal. 11. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner fails to be present and/or duly represented by her learned counsel on or before 30.05.2026, it would be permissible for the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass a fresh opinion by treating the petitioner to be absent on call. 12. The writ petition stands partly allowed and disposed of on terms as indicated above. 13. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 14. The Registry shall expeditiously return the Tribunal’s records along with a copy of this order to be made a part of record by the said learned Tribunal. 15. The learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC shall send a downloaded copy of this order to the Home and Political Department so that they can take a decision, if so advised, to hold regular training programmes for the learned Members and Tribunal’s staff, so that mistakes of such nature can be prevented. 16. In requesting the Home and Political Department, Govt. of Assam to take a decision on training because the Court is pained to take note of the fact that for the mistake which has been committed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal-8th, Barpeta, the Reference No. 2467/97 dated 19.12.1997, made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, before the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Barpeta, had to be remanded back after 29 years from the date of initial reference. 17. 17. Before parting with the records, it must be recorded that the fact that all six witnesses were not discussed in the impugned opinion was not pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, perhaps because he had no time to peruse the Tribunal’s record. Therefore, in this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner had not rendered any worthwhile assistance to the Court. Rather, valuable time of the Court was wasted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in failing to peruse the Tribunal’s record before commencement of hearing. The matter had come to light only on a careful examination of the Tribunal’s record.