Page No.# 1/30 GAHC010104922022 2026:GAU-AS:8867-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3781/2022 HATEM ALI S/O LATE UMED ALI, R/O VILL-SOLMARI, P.S.-BHELOWGURI, DIST- MORIGAON (ASSAM) VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI- 1 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SONITPUR P.O. AND DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) MORIGAON P.O. AND DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 5:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1 Page No.# 2/30 6:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC OF ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR, M M ZAMAN,MR. S I TALUKDAR,MD A ALI Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, ECI,SC, NRC,GA, ASSAM,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN For the petitioner : Mr. A.R. Sikdar, Advocate For respondents : Mr. J. Payeng, Mr. P. Sarmah, Mr. A.I. Ali, : Ms. D.J. Das, Advocate. Date on which judgment is reserved : 15.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NO Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : YES JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (S. Jahan, J) Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, Advocate, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate representing respondent no.4. Page No.# 3/30 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Hatem Ali, has challenged the opinion dated 28.08.2020, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.5th, Morigaon, Assam, in No. M.F.T.(J).2020/1876 [Case No. F.T.(D)1847/2017 (New number) [F.T.(D) 476/2010 (Old Number)], arising out of D/N Case No. 1405/98 dated 20.06.98, thereby declaring him to be a foreigner, who had entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971. 3. In his written statement the petitioner has stated that there is no cause of action to continue with the case against him; the Election Commission had baselessly and without reasonable ground marked ‘D’ in the electoral roll of 1997 and since then he has been deprived of franchise. It has been stated that he was falsely made ‘D’ voter upon a false, baseless and fabricated verification report and the instant proceeding has been drawn against him. It was stated that the verification officer had never visited the house of the petitioner nor asked/informed him to produce documents regarding citizenship before him and that the columns of the verification report has not been properly filled up and the ERO’s reference is not true as it is based on false report of Verification Officer. He had stated that he was born on 01.10.1968 as per his Income Tax PAN Card. He did not go to school and as such he does not have a school certificate and he was not provided with a birth certificate. He is the son of Umed Ali and Raiman Nessa @ Sahuran Nessa and was born and brought up at village- Sonarigaon, Mouza- Moirabari, present P.S. Bhelowguri in the district of Morigaon. His father was also born and brought up in village- Sonarigaon and his name was entered in NRC of 1951, under Sonarigaon, then under Laharighat P.S., and his name was enrolled in the voter list of 1965 and 1970. The name of his grandfather is Babujan @ Babujan Sheikh. His father had landed property, Page No.# 4/30 whose name was recorded in the Draft Chitha in the year 1968-69, at village- Sonarigaon. His father has four sons and two daughters, namely, Asmat Ali, Hasmat Ali, Hatem Ali, Isab Ali, Khudeja Khatun and Manikjan, out of which Asmat Ali and Hasmat Ali had already died. Thereafter, in the year 1988-89, the petitioner and his family had lost everything i.e. land and house in the erosion of river Brahmaputra and they became landless and houseless for which they could not inherit their father’s land and presently, they were living in a miserable condition at Mathouri, in Solmari village. The petitioner had stated that he does not know how his name was marked as ‘D’ voter and because of the said mark, his right of franchise has been curtailed. 4. In support of his defence, the petitioner had examined himself as DW-1 and while reiterating the statements made in his written statement, exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) Income Tax PAN Card (Ext.A) (proved in original); NRC print-out [Ext.B(i)]; certified copy of voter list of 1965 [Ext.B(ii)]; certified copy of voter list of 1970 [Ext.B(iii)]; certified copy of jamabandi (Ext.C); certified copy of chitha of 1958-69 [Ext.C(i)]; certified copy of voter list of 1985 (Ext.D). 5. The learned Tribunal upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence had observed that the petitioner had projected Asmat Ali as his elder brother, Umed Ali as his father and Raiman Nessa @ Sohuran Nessa as his mother. But in the police reference, the name of his father is stated as Asmat Ali. The learned Tribunal had also noted that in his cross-examination on 02.03.2020, the petitioner had disclosed his age to be 52 years and therefore, took a view that the petitioner was born sometime in the year 1968 and therefore, his first voting right would be after age of 21 years in the year 1989, and moreover, the petitioner had also disclosed in his cross-examination that his Page No.# 5/30 father had died 12/13 years ago and his mother had died after a few years of his father’s death. Therefore, the learned Tribunal had found the evidence questionable because the name of the petitioner had appeared in the voter list of 1985 and the names of his projected parents did not appear with him since 1985. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had concluded that by the voter list of 1985 (Ext.D), the petitioner had failed to prove his linkage with Umed Ali, whose name appear in the voter list of 1965 [Ext.B(ii)] and 1970 [Ext.B(iii)] as his father. The Income Tax PAN Card (Ext.A) showing his name and Umed Ali as his father was discarded as it was a post 1971 document. Ext.B(i), the NRC legacy data was discarded as the petitioner had not proved its contents by calling the issuing authority and therefore, the said document was held to be not acceptable as an admissible document in support of Indian citizenship. 6. The learned Tribunal had discarded the certified copy of jamabandi [Ext.C(i)] and certified copy of chitha [Ext.C(ii)] on the ground that the said documents were not proved by the issuing authority was not examined. 7. Accordingly, the exhibited documents were found to be not sufficient to prove the linkage of the petitioner with his projected Indian parents and grand-parents to a period prior to 25.03.1971, which is the cut-off date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Thus, it was held that the petitioner was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971. 8. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is summarized as under:- a. It was submitted that the enquiry report of the Local Verification Page No.# 6/30 Officer was vague and not properly filled-up and therefore, there was lack of sufficient material before the learned Tribunal to declare the petitioner to be a foreigner. Moreover, there was actually no enquiry and the petitioner was never asked by the LVO in any enquiry to produce any document in support of his Indian citizen. Thus it was submitted that the exercise was illegal. b. It was submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner contained two charges, one of entering into India between 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 and the other was that he had entered into India after 25.03.1971 and accordingly, it was submitted that the petitioner was not specifically and clearly charged regarding the stream when he had entered into India and therefore, the learned Tribunal had rendered its opinion in a mechanical manner. In support of the said submission, the case of (i) Sona Kha v. Union of India, 2021 (3) GLT 12, and (ii) Rafika Bibi v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 3330/2020, decided on 26.05.2025. c. It was also submitted that the NRC data, voters lists and jamabandi are public documents and therefore, not required to be proved by calling witness. d. It was submitted that when the petitioner has stated that his father was Umed Ali and Asmot Ali was his elder brother, the learned Tribunal could at best disbelieve such statement, but the learned Tribunal could not have mentioned in the impugned opinion that father of Hatem Ali is Asmot Ali @ Umed Ali, which has the effect of altering his family relationship. Page No.# 7/30 e. Against the petitioner ‘D’ mark was inserted behind his back and without any enquiry, which had violated his right to natural justice. f. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal had analyzed documentary exhibits but did otherwise discuss the evidence of the petitioner. 9. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Border and FT matters has made his submission in support of the impugned opinion. 10. Thus, the following five points of determination arises out of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case:- a. Whether on the ground that the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer was vague and not properly filled-up, the reference was vitiated? b. Whether on the ground that the notice issued to the petitioner contained two charges, one of entering into India between 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 and the other was that he had entered into India after 25.03.1971, for which the charge against the petitioner was not clear, the impugned opinion is vitiated? c. Whether in light of Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the voters lists, NRC and jamabandi were not required to be proved, being public document? d. Whether discussion of only the documentary evidence without discussing other part of the evidence-on-affidavit vitiates the opinion? e. Whether the impugned opinion called for interference? Analysis of the evidence of the petitioner’s side: Page No.# 8/30 11. In this case, the petitioner had examined himself as DW-1. In his evidence-on-affidavit sworn on 17.02.2020 and filed on 02.03.2020. In paragraph 11 of the written statement, the petitioner had stated that he was born on 01.10.1968, but in paragraph 3 of his evidence-on-affidavit, though it is initially typed that the petitioner was born on 01.10.1968, but the date “01.10.” has been struck-off and replaced by the handwritten words “in the year”. Moreover, in paragraph 4 of the evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had stated that the exact date of birth could not be recollected as the date of his birth was not registered by any authority and he did not go to school. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner had himself disowned the truthfulness of the contents of the PAN Card (Ext.A). Moreover, the PAN Card is a document which has been issued after the cut-off date of 25.03.1971, which has been issued on the basis of self- declaration of the petitioner. This Court, in the case of Md. Babul Islam v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 3547/16, decided on 09.05.2018, held that PAN Card is not a valid piece of evidence in absence of supporting evidence. Moreover, in the case of Mustt. Rabiya Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 4986/2016, decided on 09.02.2018, held that PAN card not a trustworthy document as the petitioner is not an Income Tax payee and the PAN card not proved by calling Income Tax official regarding application for PAN card. Therefore, as one of the entries of the PAN Card (Ext.A), having been disowned by the petitioner, was rightly rejected as a valid piece of evidence to link the petitioner with his projected parents. 12. The petitioner had stated in paragraph 12 of his written statement that he was born and brought up in village- Sonarigaon. In paragraph 13 of his written statement, he had stated that Umed Ali, his father was born in village- Sonarigaon. However, in his evidence-on-affidavit, though in paragraph Page No.# 9/30 3, the petitioner had stated that he was born in Sonarigaon, but there is no statement anywhere as to where his projected father was born. 13. As mentioned hereinbefore, it is reiterated that in paragraph 4 of the evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had stated that the exact date of birth could not be recollected as the date of his birth was not registered by any authority and he did not go to school. However, in his cross-examination, the petitioner had disclosed that he had studied upto Class-IV in Boudh School situated at Dhekeramari Gaon. Thus, the evidence tendered in paragraph 4 of his evidence-on-affidavit is false. The school record, if produced would have thrown some light as to who was his father and what was his age recorded in school admission register. 14. The petitioner had stated in paragraph 7 of his evidence-on- affidavit that his father had a lot of landed property at village- Sonarigaon. Accordingly, he had exhibited the jamabandi [Ext.C] and chitha [Ext.C(i)]. However, in paragraph 10 of his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had stated that the said land was lost in river erosion. Though the entries in the land revenue records is not disbelieved, but then a certified copy of jamabandi and chitha are public documents and in the State of Assam, there is no prohibition that a third party is not issued certified copy of anybody’s jamabandi and chitha, Therefore, as the name of the petitioner is not entered in the land revenue records as the legal heir of his projected father, as stand-alone documents, the entries made in the jamabandi (Ext.C) and chitha [Ext.C(i)], is insufficient to establish the linkage of the petitioner with his projected father. 15. In paragraph 8 of his evidence-on- affidavit, the petitioner has disclosed that his father had four sons and two daughters, but there is no exhibited document which shows the family of parents and siblings together. Page No.# 10/30 16. This leaves with examination of the voters lists, which would be done later. 17. Now coming to the pleadings and evidence of the petitioner, he has not disclosed (i) the year of the death of his parents; (ii) about the whereabouts of his projected parents after the year 1970 till the respective date of their respective death, which was otherwise required to show their continuous stay in the Country, as required under Section 6A (2)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 18. The voter list of 1965 [Ext.B(ii)], discloses the names of 5 (five) persons. However, apart from referring to his parents, the petitioner has not disclosed about his relationship with other three voters. 19. In the aforesaid context, it may be mentioned that in the case of Rashminara Begum v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (4) GLT 346, this Court had held that material facts pleaded would have to be proved by adducing cogent and admissible evidence. The said view was also endorsed by this Court in the case of Saru Sheikh v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 4 GLR 295. In the case of Ayesha Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 3 GLR 820, and Jehirul Islam v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 5 GLR 670, this Court had held that failure to disclose material facts would lead to adverse presumption. 20. In the case of Ramila Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 373, this court, while dealing with written statement in a proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal, had laid down four legal propositions, viz., (i) it was held that it is trite law that documentary evidence will have to be proved on the basis of record and contemporaneous record must substantiate and prove the contents of the document; (ii) Proof of document is one thing and proof of Page No.# 11/30 contents is another and it was further held that not only the document has to be proved but the contents would also have to be proved; (iii) that apart, the truthfulness of the contents of the document would also have to be established from the record; and (iv) that a document or contents of a document cannot be proved on the basis of personal knowledge. 21. The points of determination are now taken up for discussion. Second point of determination: 22. The second point of determination is as to whether on the ground that the notice issued to the petitioner contained two charges, one of entering into India between 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 and the other was that he had entered into India after 25.03.1971, for which the charge against the petitioner was not clear, the impugned opinion is vitiated, is taken up now. 23. In this case, on the basis of the report dated 17.10.1997, from the Electoral Registration Officer of the 83 Dhing LAC, which is based on the report of the Local Verification Officer (LVO for short), the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta had D/N Case No. 1405/98 dated 20.06.1998. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta had submitted the reference before the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Barpeta [hereinafter referred to as IM(D)T for short] for determination of the reference. In brief, this fact is reflected in paragraph 1 of the impugned opinion. The learned Tribunal’s record reveals that the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, while sending the reference, had made an endorsement aparagraph 11 that “The suspect entered in to India (Assam) on or after 25th March, 1971 as he could not produce any documents to prove the citizenship that he is not an I/M.” Here the abbreviation I/M would mean “illegal migrants”. Page No.# 12/30 24. However, while issuing notice, the learned Tribunal had put the petitioner to notice that he had entered illegally into India (Assam) “between 01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971/ post 25.03.1971”. 25. Under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the reference can only be made as to whether or not a person is a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Upon reading Order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, it is discernible that a reference is made to a Tribunal for its opinion whether a person is a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Thus, if no reference is made, the Foreigners Tribunals cannot assume jurisdiction, but only after the reference is made, the Tribunal would have to confine itself to the terms of reference and render its opinion. This Court in the case of Aziz Miya @ Md. Aziz Mia v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 (4) GLT 246, had held that the provisions of Order 2 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 make it explicit that it is the Superintendent of Police (Border) who would be the authority to take a decision based upon the report of the inquiry or any further materials that may be available as to whether a person concerned is required to be referred to a Tribunal for its opinion as to whether he is a foreigner or not. 26. As regards, non-mentioning and/or wrong mentioning of the stream when the suspected foreigner had entered illegally into India (Assam), it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Ananda Ghosh v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (2) GLT 996, which is quoted below:- 10. Question for consideration is whether such a finding of the Tribunal would stand vitiated by non-mentioning in the two notices issued to the petitioner that the allegation against him was of being a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971? Page No.# 13/30 11. As already noticed above, the reference made by the Superintendent of Police to the Tribunal was specific. Petitioner was a Bangladeshi national who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 03.25.1971. Prima facie, it was the mistake of the Tribunal not to have specifically mentioned this in the two notices issued to the petitioner. However, from the materials on record. Tribunal came to the conclusion and thereafter rendered its opinion that petitioner was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. The reference was answered accordingly. 12. In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Mustt. Abiran Nessa Vs. Union of India (WA 200/2016), decided on 27.3.17, it has been held that wrong mentioning of the foreigners stream as classified under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. 1955 to which the noticee belongs would not vitiate the proceeding before the Tribunal or consequential order passed by the Tribunal if the materials on record discloses that the noticee actually belongs to the stream of foreigners which has been ultimately held to be so by the Tribunal. Wrong mentioning of the stream of foreigners to which the noticee belongs contrary to the reference made by the State would not vitiate the order passed by the Tribunal and would not confer any undue advantage to a proceedee or enable a proceedee to improve his status. It was held as follows:- "10. Thus, materials on record, as found by the learned Single Judge, disclosed that appellant was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory after 25.03.1971. The reference was also made accordingly. 11. It is trite that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision would not invalidate an order if such an order can be traced to a valid source. In such a situation, Court would examine whether the order in question has any legal sanctity and whether it can be traced to a valid source of power. If it can be traced to a valid source of law, wrong mentioning of the provision of law in the order impugned would be immaterial. Page No.# 14/30 12. By applying the same analogy, it can also be said that wrong mentioning of the foreigners stream as classified under Section of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended, to which the noticee belongs would not vitiate the proceeding or the consequential order passed by the Tribunal if materials on record disclose that the notices actually belongs to the stream of foreigners, which has been ultimately held to be so by the Tribunal. Such wrong mentioning contrary to the materials on record or contrary to the reference made would not confer any undue advantage to a proceedee or enable a proceedee to improve his/her status. Therefore, on this count, we cannot condemn the order passed by the Tribunal which has been rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 13. Having regard to the above, we have no hesitation to hold that when the reference was as to whether petitioner was a foreigner belonging to the post 25.03.1971 stream, non-mentioning of the same or wrong-mentioning of the stream of foreigners to which the petitioner belongs in the notices would not vitiate the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal that petitioner was a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. Since the reference was answered in favour of the State, it ought to be and has rightly been answered in the above manner. As a matter of fact, this issue was not even raised by the petitioner in his written statement possibly because he was fully aware that the allegation against him was of being a foreigner belonging to the post 25.03.1971 stream. Therefore, this ground urged on behalf of the petitioner stands rejected. However, before moving on to the next ground, we would like to observe that the Tribunal ought to have been careful while issuing the notices. We hope and expect that such mistakes would not be repeated in future.” 27. In the same context, it would be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 10, 12, 13 and 21 of the case of Rukia Begum Barbhuiya v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 (1) GLT 1208. 10. A reading of Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 makes it discernible that the Central Government may by order, refer the question as to Page No.# 15/30 whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946 to a Tribunal constituted for the purpose. The statutory provision of Rule 2(1) makes it explicit that the reference to be made by a Tribunal would be the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946. Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act 1946 defines foreigner to mean a person who is not a citizen of India. In other words, going by the meaning given to the expression foreigner under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act 1946 a reference made to the Tribunal would be as to whether the person concerned is a citizen of India or he is not a citizen of India. 12. A reading of the provisions of Section 6 A makes it explicit that it is a special provision as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord and the core provisions of Section 6 A are that a person who may have entered the State of Assam from the specified territory prior to 01.01.1966 shall be deemed to be a citizen of India from the 1st day of January. 1966. The further provision is that such persons who entered the State of Assam from the specified territory after 01.01.1966. but before 25.03.1971 from the specified territory, and has been detected to be a foreigner, shall register himself with the Foreigners Registering Authority of the district concerned and upon having been registered shall be debarred of any voting rights for a period of ten years, but otherwise retaining all such other rights that a citizen of India may be bestowed with under the provisions and further that upon expiry of the period of ten years, even the voting rights would be restored back. In s persons, who had entered the State of Assam from the specified territory on or after 25.3.1971, such persons are to be declared as foreigners. 13. In view of the provisions of Section & A of the Citizenship Act 1955. Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 would now have to be understood that once a reference is made, the reference would be whether the person concerned is or is not a foreigner, meaning thereby, whether the person concerned is a foreigner, who had entered the Staten of Assam from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971 or he is a person who belongs to any of the other categories ie, a person who entered the State of Assam from the specified territory before 01.01.1966 or between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971. No other meaning can be attributed to the reference under Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 i.e. whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946. We further take note that even if a reference is made by setting up a question whether the person had entered the State of Assam from the specified territory between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971, the reference would have to be understood to be a reference under Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 ie., as to whether he is a foreigner or not. If the reference is worded Page No.# 16/30 whether the person concerned, is a person who had entered the State of Assam from the specified territory between 1.1.1966 and 25.03.1971, in order to arrive at any such conclusion that the reference itself is faulty inasmuch as the decision of the Tribunal upon the materials on record would be that the person concerned had entered the State of Assam from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971, in such circumstance, the only situation that can be envisaged is that the Tribunal first arrives at a conclusion of its own that the person concerned had entered the State of Assam from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971, meaning thereby that the reference itself had been answered by the Tribunal. After having answered the reference, it would be an inconceivable situation that merely because the reference is worded whether the person had entered the State of Assam from the specified territory between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971 it has to be referred back to the referral authority to make a fair reference now putting up a question whether the person concerned had entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971. In such situation, as the matter would have to be referred back only after a final decision has been arrived at and now if the reference is again made with a corrected expression in the questions framed, the same may lead to further complications that the subsequent reference would be barred by the principles of res judicata inasmuch as it would be a subsequent reference on the same issue between the same set of parties where an earlier decision had already been arrived at. It is noticed that in Falani Bibi (supra) the aforesaid aspect of the further implication of a corrected reference being again made had not been gone into and from such point of view, it can be said that the view taken therein would be per inquiriam of the further consequences of a fresh reference being made. 21. We further add that going by the statutory provisions of Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 any reference would have to be understood to be a reference to the Tribunal on the question whether the person so referred is a foreigner or not within the meaning of Foreigners Act, 1946, where again foreigner is given the meaning of a person who is not a citizen and again where a citizen is defined under the Citizenship Act 1955.” 28. In light of above, in the case of Jahura Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2641/2019, decided on 24.04.2026, by referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Rafika Bibi @ Rafika Khatun (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had held that the decision in the case of Rafika Bibi (supra), had been passed in ignorance of the earlier precedent of this Court in the case of Ananda Ghosh (supra), Rukia Begum Barbhuiya Page No.# 17/30 (supra), Safiqul Islam @ Md. Abikul Islam v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 55, Accordingly, it was held that the decision in the case of Rafika Bibi @ Rafika Khatun (supra) [where one of us (K.R. Surana, J) was the Member of the Bench], would not be a binding precedent in respect of the point urged. 29. The learned counsel, apart from citing the case of Aziz Miya @ Md. Aziz Mia (supra), had also cited the case of Sona Kha v. Union of India & Ors., 2021 (3) GLT 12: (2021) 4 GLR 200. In the case of Sona Kha (supra), the reference did not allege the petitioner therein to be an illegal migrant. Rather, the Enquiry Report was to the effect that the petitioner in the said case was not an illegal migrant and yet, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Baksa, had forwarded the case to the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur. Under such circumstances, this Court had held that the learned Tribunal would have to satisfy itself about the existence of grounds before proceeding to consider the case on merits about the citizenship. The case in hand is, thus, distinguishable. 30. Accordingly, the second point of determination is answered by holding that the Superintendent of Police (Border), in this case, while making a reference before the Foreigners Tribunal, had clearly suspected the petitioner to be an illegal migrant. Therefore, a mere fact that while issuing notice, there were two charges, of the petitioner entering into India between 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 and the other that he had entered into India after 25.03.1971, would not make the charge against the petitioner to be not clear or ambiguous. Thus, the impugned opinion is not found to be vitiated on that count. Thus, the point of determination is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. First point of determination: 31. The first point of determination is as to whether on the ground Page No.# 18/30 that the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer was vague and not properly filled up, the reference was vitiated, is taken up first. 32. It is common knowledge that a culprit would ordinarily not admit his guilt and similarly, it cannot be expected that an illegal foreigner/ migrant would admit that he is a foreigner and would voluntarily disclose about his address in Bangladesh. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Election Commission of India requisitions the serviced of various Government Servants for enumeration and verification duties. The said officers are not trained in a manner in which the police are trained for investigation. Therefore, when Verification Officers put queries to the disputed voters, and those queries are not answered and no supporting documents are produced by the suspect, the Court cannot reject the enquiry report merely because no reply was given by the suspect and no documents were produced by the suspected illegal migrant. Under such circumstances, as per Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof is on the suspected illegal migrant to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian. 33. It may be mentioned herein that by virtue of the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), all the proceedings that were then pending before the erstwhile IM(D)Ts, were transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal having jurisdiction. The transferred reference was received by the jurisdictional Foreigners Tribunal, being Foreigners Tribunal-2, Morigaon. Later on, after creation of the new Tribunal, the reference was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal- 5th, Morigaon, where it was registered as Case No. F.T.(D) 1847/2017. Therefore, as evident from the decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), the instant case was transferred from IM(D)T to Page No.# 19/30 the Foreigners Tribunal, no further determination can be made by this Court regarding making of and/or registration of the reference. 34. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the petitioner had made any attempt to establish before the learned Foreigners Tribunal that the investigation was not proper. Moreover, in this case, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings without any demur and therefore, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the said learned Foreigners Tribunal and therefore, it would be impermissible for the petitioner to now claim that the reference was not properly made. 35. The said action by the Electoral Registration Officer is initiated under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, after the draft electoral roll is prepared and the Electoral Registration Officer has reasons to suspect that a voter, whose name appears in the draft, is an illegal migrant and/or a foreigner. 36. Be that as it may, in the case of Shukurjan Nessa @ Sukurjan v Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 245/2019, decided on 28.02.2025, the reference by the Electoral Registration Officer has been dealt with. In the said case, the issue relating to the reference made at the instance of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO for short) has been clarified. The relevant part of the said judgment and order is extracted hereinbelow:- 14. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference was blank and not properly filled up and therefore, the grounds of suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner has not been furnished to her is taken up first. 15. In this case, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta, on receipt of communication dated 16.03.1998, issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, 44 No. Jania L.A.C., which is accompanied with a three page Local Verification Report (Annexure-A) by one Sri Khagen Kalita, J.E. In the said LVO Report dated 17.10.1997, it has been mentioned at two places to the effect that no documents produced during field verification. Page No.# 20/30 16. Therefore, this is not a case where any enquiry was made under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 or Rules framed thereunder, where investigation is done under the authority of the Superintendent of Police (Border). The jurisdictional Superintendent of Police (Border) is the prescribed authority to make reference before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal constituted under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and Rules framed thereunder. 17. There is an important facet, which is contained in the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin (supra), which must be referred to. We are in respectful agreement with the said judgment and therefore, paragraphs 11 to 22 thereof are quoted below:- 11. In the year 1997, Election Commission of India had undertaken an intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam as apprehensions were expressed from various quarters that the electoral rolls were infested with the names of foreigners/illegal migrants. In the course of this exercise citizenship status of as many as 3,13,046 persons whose names were in the draft voters lists were found to be doubtful and accordingly they were marked as doubtful “D” voters in the electoral rolls after local verification. 12. Legality of this exercise was challenged before this Court in HRA Choudhury Vs Election Commission of India, reported in 2002 (1) GLT 1. The challenge made was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. In HRA Choudhury (supra) this Court examined the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 of the Election Commission of India laying down the procedure to carry out the exercise. 12.1. As per paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines the Electoral Registration Officer was required to consider the verification report received from the Local Verification Officer. If he was satisfied on such report and such other material/information as may be available about the eligibility of a person, he should allow his name to continue on the electoral roll. Where, however, he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, he was required to refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 as the case may be. For convenience of the Electoral Registration Officers, Election Commission devised proformas. 12.2. As per paragraph 3.9, after the case of a person was referred by the Electoral Registration Officer to the competent authority, he should wait for the decision of the relevant Tribunal in relation to that person and act according to such decision. 12.3. As per paragraph 3.10, where the relevant Tribunal decided that any such person was not a citizen of India, Electoral Registration Officer Page No.# 21/30 should proceed under Rule 21 A of the Registration of Electors Rolls, 1960 to have the name of such person deleted from the electoral roll before it was finally published. 12.4. This Court in HRA Choudhury (supra) held that such guidelines and decision of the Election Commission were in accordance with Article 324 of the Constitution of India besides conforming to the principles of natural justice. It was held that such guidelines cannot be held to be arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or partiality. 13. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 is no longer in existence, the same having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665. Therefore, in so far paragraph 3.8 of the guidelines dated 17.07.1997 is concerned, the reference would be under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 14. The above exercise was repeated in the year 2005 with the Election Commission of India again going for intensive revision of electoral rolls in the State of Assam taking 01.01.2005 as the qualifying date. In this connection, guidelines dated 17.06.2004 were issued by the Election Commission of India. Paragraph 2.2 of the guidelines dealt with “D” voters. It was mentioned that the guidelines issued in 1997 would be followed while dealing with such category of persons. Paragraph 8 dealt with verification by Electoral Registration Officers. It laid down the procedure while carrying out such verification including verification by Local Verification Officer. As per paragraph 8.6, Local Verification Officer would conduct the verification by making an on the spot visit and the person concerned could adduce any one or more of the documents mentioned therein in support of his claim as a citizen of India. After due verification, the Local Verification Officer was required to submit his report in the prescribed format. Under paragraph 8.8, Electoral Registration Officer on receipt of the verification report from the Local Verification Officer should consider the same. Where he was satisfied about the eligibility of a person, he should allow the name of such person to continue on the electoral roll but where he was not so satisfied and had reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person he should refer such doubtful cases to the competent authority under the then Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 in a prepared format (Annexure-B to the guidelines dated 17.06.2004) to the competent authority for making reference to the Tribunal and await the decision of such Tribunal. 15. As pointed out by Mr. 15. As pointed out by Mr. Barua, in Mameja Khatun (supra) a Single Bench of this Court directed that “D” voters should not be allowed to cast their Page No.# 22/30 votes with the clarification that “D” voters would include persons whose names were included in the electoral rolls but their citizenship was doubted or disputed and also those whose cases were pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. This decision of the learned Single Bench was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 114/2011 (State Vs Mameja Khatun). By the judgment and order dated 13.10.2015, the Division Bench directed Election Commission of India and other authorities to implement the directions of the Single Bench in letter and spirit. 16. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that in WP(C) No. 274/2009 filed by Assam Public Works which is pending before the Supreme Court of India wherein NRC updation exercise in the State of Assam is being monitored by the Supreme Court of India, on 25.10.2013, Supreme Court clarified that as far as persons in the “D” list are concerned, undoubtedly they were doubtful voters and therefore their names could not be included unless the NRC is updated and unless the Foreigners Tribunals declared them to be Indian citizens. 17. The Foreigners Act, 1946 is an act to confer upon the Central Government certain powers in respect of foreigners. This Act provides for the exercise of certain powers by the Central Government in respect of the entry of foreigners into India; their presence in India and their departure therefrom. Section 2 (a) defines a “foreigner” to mean a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 3 confers power to the Central Government to make orders making provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or their continued presence therein. 17.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Central Government made the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. As per order 2 (1), the Central Government may by order refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to a Tribunal to be constituted for the purpose for its opinion. 18. Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India had issued notification dated 19.04.1958 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-(1) of Article 258 of the Constitution of India whereby the President with the consent of the State Government concerned entrusted to the Governments of each of the States mentioned therein including the State of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Another notification dated 17.02.1976 was issued by Page No.# 23/30 the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 258 (1) of the Constitution entrusting the Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) under the Government of Assam the functions of the Central Government in making orders of the nature specified in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 within their respective jurisdictions subject to the conditions mentioned therein which included the condition that exercise of such functions would be in respect of nationals of Bangladesh and that while exercising such functions, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) shall comply with such general or special directions as the Government of Assam or the Central Government may issue from time to time. 19. Article 258 of the Constitution deals with power of the Union to confer powers etc on States in certain cases. Clause (1) of Article 258 starts with a non-obstante clause. It says that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. Clause (3) provides for making of payment by the Government of India to the State concerned such sum as may be agreed upon or in default of agreement through arbitration in respect of any extra- cost of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of powers and duties of the Government of India conferred or imposed upon a State Government. 20. Thus, under the Central Government notifications dated 19.04.1958 and 17.02.1976, Government of Assam, Superintendents of Police and Deputy Commissioners (In-charge of Police) have been delegated the power to make reference to the Foreigners Tribunal under order 2 (1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to seek opinion as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 21. Thus from the above, what transpires is that there are two categories of “D” voters:- (i). those who were marked as “D” voters in the electoral roll by the Electoral Registration Officer following enquiry by Local Verification Officer; and (ii). those whose references are pending before the Foreigners Tribunals. 22. In so far Electoral Registration Officer is concerned the exercise undertaken by him while marking a person as a “D” voter in the electoral roll is a quasi judicial exercise. If he holds the view after examining the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer that the concerned person is not a citizen of India he is required to forward the case of that person to the Page No.# 24/30 competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police. If it is so forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police has to make a reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunals under order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 based on the report received from the Electoral Registration Officer. Question of making further enquiry by the Superintendent of Police in such a case would not arise because enquiry has already been made by the Electoral Registration Officer by exercising quasi judicial powers and the Superintendent of Police cannot sit over such decision of the Electoral Registration Officer. He has to forward the same by making the reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunal for its opinion. 17. The said judgment by the learned Single Judge has stood affirmed by the virtue of judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the case of Moslem Mondal (supra) and Amina Khatun (supra) to support his contention that if LVO report is blank, the reference is vitiated. In this regard, it would be relevant to mention that as per the contents of para-10 of the case of Moslem Mondal (supra), the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, suspecting the respondent therein as illegal migrant within the meaning of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, made a reference under Section 8 (1) of the said Act read with Rule 9 (A) of the Rules framed thereunder and accordingly, Case No. 1311/2003 was registered before the IM(D)T, Barpeta and the said proceeding was subsequently transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal and registered as F.T. Case No. 243/2006. Therefore, in the said case, reference was not made by Electoral Registration Officer (EVO for short). Hence, the decision of Moslem Mondal (supra), being distinguishable on facts, is not found to help the petitioner in any manner. 19. However, in the case of Amina Khatun (supra), which was decided on 28.04.2022, the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), based on LVO by the ERO. But when the said writ petition was being heard and decided by a Coordinate Bench, it appears that the previous decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. The Union of India & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 456, as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayam Uddin v. Union of India & Ors., W.A. 170/2019, decided on 29.07.2019, were not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that under the well settled principles of stare decisis, the decision in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) would be per incurium. Accordingly, the decision rendered in the case of Amina Khatun (supra) will also not be of any help to the petitioner. 20. In the present case, the proceedings which were hitherto pending before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals were transferred by the Supreme Court Page No.# 25/30 of India to the Foreigners Tribunal vide directions issued in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). The said fact has been stated in para-1 of the impugned opinion. Hence, this Court would refrain from making any observations on the LVO Report in this case because the Foreigners Tribunals would have no power or jurisdiction to remand the reference back to the Superintendent of Police (Border) for a fresh enquiry by the LVO/ERO. 21. Therefore, the challenge to the proceeding before the learned Foreigners Tribunal on the ground that certain paragraphs and/or columns of the Local Verification Officer’s (LVO) Report, as forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) were left blank, is held to be not maintainable on facts and in law morefully referred to hereinbefore. The point of determination no. (i) is answered accordingly.” 37. In this case, the reference were made before the erstwhile IM(D)T and thereafter, the proceeding was transferred on the basis of orders passed by the Supreme Court of India, referred above. If in a given case, the proceedee discloses incorrect information and/or does not disclose any relevant information to the LVO, there is no way that a LVO will be able to fill-up all the columns of the form. Therefore, can the reference be allowed to be frustrated because of the incorrect information and/or lack of information by the proceedee and resultantly render him as an Indian citizen by dint of his own fault. The answer would in an emphatic no. 38. In this case, the petitioner was aware that he had failed to produce any material in support of his defence of not being an illegal migrant/ foreigner when the enquiry was made. This is evident from the fact that against column nos. 3 to 16 of Format-A, which is the “Format for Verification Officer’s Report”, nothing was recorded. Therefore, at this stage, when the Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction, it is only permissible to examine if the opinion expressed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal is vitiated on account of perversity. Without raising such plea before the learned Tribunal, the State cannot be non- Page No.# 26/30 suited on such plea taken for the first time before this Court. If one needs any authority on the point of the extent of power that can be exercised under certiorari jurisdiction, the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC 733: (2023) 0 Supreme(SC) 763, may be referred to. Paragraph 77 thereof is quoted below:- “77. The purpose of certiorari, as we understand, is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the non- exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. This Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 334 observed: “26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made.” 39. Thus, the said plea that the petitioner was not served with the grounds of suspecting him to be a foreigner and that the verification form was not properly filled-up are both repelled and rejected. The first point of determination is accordingly, answered in the negative and against the petitioner. Third point of determination: Page No.# 27/30 40. The third point of determination is as to whether in light of Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the voter list was not required to be proved, being public document is taken up now. 41. Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872, reads as follows:- 77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies.- Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. 42. Thus, the provision of Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872, merely provides for the production of certified copies to prove the contents of a public document. There is no quarrel with the said statutory provision. However, by producing certified copies of the voter’s lists as Ext.A to Ext.D, it cannot be held that the petitioner has been able to establish his link with the persons whose names appear in those voter’s lists so as to establish his Indian citizenship. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491: (2010) 0 Supreme(SC) 234, that admission of a document in evidence does not amount to proof. In other words, mere marking of a document as exhibit does not amount to dispensing with its mode and manner of proof. The contents of the documents have to be proved in accordance with law. The effect of Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is that if a proceedee relies on voter list, only a certified copy of such voter list would be admissible and thus, filing of uncertified copy of the electoral roll would not be admissible in evidence. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thengapandi, (2023) 0 Supreme(SC) 974: 2023 INSC 835, has held to the effect that “… As per Section 77 of the Evidence Act such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public Page No.# 28/30 document concerned.” It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any authority in law to show that once a certified copy of a public record is produced and marked as exhibit, the proof of contents of the document is dispensed with. Thus, the reliance of the learned counsel on Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872, in the context in which submissions were made, appears to be somewhat misplaced. 43. Therefore, the third point of determination is answered in the negative and against the petitioner by holding that the provision of Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872 only enables a proceedee to produce only a certified copy of such voter list on which he/she relies, which would be admissible and thus, filing of an uncertified copy of the electoral roll would not be admissible in evidence, however, a mere production of certified copy of voter list would not amount to dispensing with the proof of the contents of such certified copies. Fourth point of determination: 44. The fourth point of determination is as to whether the impugned opinion called for interference. 45. In Aziz Miya @ Md. Aziz Mia (supra), it has been held that a mere claim by a suspected person by referring to a voters’ list claiming a person therein to be his father is not conclusive proof and that by doing so, it cannot be said that the person has discharged the burden to prove that he is not a foreigner. This is because there is also a further requirement to prove that the person who is reflected in the voters’ list relied upon, is actually the father of the person who makes the claim. The claim will have to be substantiated with further material/materials acceptable in law. In this case, it does not appear that the petitioner had discharged his part of the burden to show that he is the son Page No.# 29/30 of the persons whose names appear in the exhibited voters list (Ext.A to Ext.D) through any other supporting cogent and admissible evidence. 46. In light of the discussions above, this Court does not find that the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by any jurisdictional error or that there was any failure in giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to show that the learned Tribunal had failed to consider any pleadings or evidence or had taken into consideration any extraneous materials to render its opinion. This is not a case where the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidence or that its finding is dehors the evidence on record. Therefore, as the Court is exercising supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal with the view of the Court. The relevant part of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bikartan Das (supra) on the point of certiorari jurisdiction has been quoted hereinbefore. 47. Thus, the opinion dated 28.08.2020, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 5th, Morigaon, Assam, in No. M.F.T. (J).2020/1876 [Case No. F.T.(D) 1847/2017(New Number), F.T.(D)476/2010(Old Number)], arising out of D/N Case No.1405/98 dated 20.06.98, thereby declaring the petitioner, namely, Hatem Ali, to be a foreigner, who had entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971, does not call for any interference in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition fails on all counts and the same is dismissed. 48. The consequences of the said opinion shall follow. 49. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 50. The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s records along with a Page No.# 30/30 copy of this order so that the said learned Tribunal would make it a part of the record for future reference. 51. The learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters shall send a downloaded copy of this order to the Home & Political (B) Department. JUDGE. JUDGE. Comparing Assistant Champak Rajbongshi Digitally signed by Champak Rajbongshi Date: 2026.06.19 16:09:37 +05'30'