Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010166942019 2026:GAU-AS:4213 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5093/2019 PRATIMA MANDAL D/O- PARITOSH MONDAL, W/O- NIRMAL MONDAL, VILL AND PO- KISMAT DWARIKA, PS- SORBHOG, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781317 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA PIN- 781301 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) BARPETA PIN- 781301 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BANERJEE, MR. K BHATTACHARJEE,MR. A MOBARAQUE,MS. C MOZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 23.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A. Mubaraque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.S. Baruah, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT & Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 05.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Barpeta 11th, in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 919/2016, arising out of P.E. No. IM(D)T 1088/2000, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. In view of the order which is proposed to be passed, the evidence and exhibits have not been discussed. 4. It would suffice to mention that the petitioner, apart from filing her written statement, has examined her projected father, Paritosh Mondal as DW-1, Page No.# 3/5 who did not exhibit any documents. On 26.07.2018, he was cross-examined and discharged. The petitioner examined herself as DW-2 on 26.07.2018 and she has exhibited the following documents, being, (i) Copy of NRC (Ext.1), (ii) School certificate (Ext.2), (iii) Voter's list of 1959 (Ext.3), (iv) Voter's list of 1971 (Ext.4), (v) NRC certificate (Ext.5), (vi) Voter's list of 1997 (Ext.6), (vii) Voter's list of 2017 (Ext.7), (viii) Jamabandi (Ext.8), and (ix) An additional voters’ list of 1989 (Ext.9). 5. It is noticed that from 13.08.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed the petition exhibiting Ext.10. However, from the learned Tribunal's record, it appears that the learned Tribunal had put its signature on Ext.9 on 13.08.2018, which is a Voter's list of 1989 and on 13.08.2018, Ext.10, which is a school certificate and a copy of the sale deed (Ext.11) on 13.08.2018. 6. The learned Tribunal's record further shows that the Headmistress of the concerned school, who had issued (Ext.11), was present and she had produced the copy of admission register. The fact that Sandhya Rani Devi, the Headmistress of the school was present has been recorded in the order dated 06.09.2018. Moreover, the documents produced by her are also recorded. It is also noted that after the evidence of the petitioner was concluded, the contents of Ext.10 and Ext.6 were shown to be proved by order dated 13.08.2018 and as per order dated 24.09.2018, the land document marked as Ext.11 was introduced in evidence. 7. Therefore, it is also noted that though it is mentioned in the opinion that the projected father of the petitioner was examined as DW-1, but in the impugned opinion, his part of the evidence is not discussed. 8. The Court also takes note of the fact that while recording the Page No.# 4/5 examination-in-chief of the petitioner as DW-2, she had only referred to the following exhibits in the following manner. "…To prove my Indian nationality I have filed 7 nos of documents as my Exhibits. Ext.-1 pertains to my grandfather. Ext-2 is my School certificate. Ext.-3 pertains to my grandparents and great grandmother. Ext.-4 pertains to my grandparents. Ext.5 pertains to grandfather and grandmother. Ext.6 pertains to my parents and grandmother. Ext.-7 pertains to parents and my 3 brothers. Ext.-8 is the jamabandi where is the name of my father stand recorded as pattadar." 9. Therefore, from the above, as DW-1 did not exhibit any document, the Court is of the considered opinion that the manner in which the evidence was recorded and as the learned Tribunal has not recorded any reason as to why Sandhya Rani Devi, the Headmistress of the concerned school, who was present, but was not examined and that the exhibited documents were allowed to be introduced without any evidence as referred above, is sufficient to hold that the manner in which the learned Tribunal was allowed to proceed in the present case is not in accordance with established procedure of conducting trial. 10. Consequently, the impugned opinion dated 05.10.2018 is found to be vitiated by the irregular manner of recording evidence and taking documents in a piecemeal manner without the witness being examined and for non-discussion of the evidence of DW-1. 11. Accordingly, the impugned opinion dated 05.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Barpeta 11th, in Case No. (Bpt/11th) F.T. 919/2016, arising out of P.E. No. IM(D)T 1088/2000, is hereby set aside with the following directions: i. The matter is remanded back to the said learned Tribunal for allowing the petitioner to give fresh evidence, such witnesses as she may so desire. Page No.# 5/5 ii. The petitioner, who is duly represented by her learned counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Barpeta 11th on 30.04.2026 without fail and by producing a certified copy of the order, await further orders from the said learned Tribunal. The petitioner shall also file evidence-on-affidavit as DW-1 and exhibit such documents as she may be so advised. The petitioner shall have liberty to examine other supporting witnesses also. iii. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear on the date fixed, it would be permissible for the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and pass appropriate orders as it may deems fit and proper. iv. The learned Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of the proceeding within the time prescribed under Order 3(14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 12. The writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. The records are to be sent back expeditiously along with a copy of this order to the concerned Tribunal for making it a part of the record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant