Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010233052017 2026:GAU-AS:8894- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1128/2017 ABDUL MALEK S/O HABIBAR RAHMAN R/O VILL- KHUTAPARA P.S- CHAPAR DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMHISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ADMINISTRATION ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 4:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O. and DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BORDER DHUBRI P.O. and DIST.- DHUBRI Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM PIN-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MR J RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : ADDL. AG, ASSAM, ASSTT.S.G.I.,GA, ASSAM,MR.D K SAIKIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 17.06.2026 (K. R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. J. Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Kakoti, learned CGC; Mr. Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the F.T. matters and NRC and Mr. Ms. R. B. Bora, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 14.09.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal 6th, Dhubri at Bilasipara, Assam, in F. T. Case No. 6th Dhubri 1-344/2016 (arising out of Ref No.-FT Case No.-04/2016, Tr. No.-768/BLP/11), by which, the petitioner was declared to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971. 3. While the learned counsel for the petitioner has made her submission against the impugned opinion, the learned Standing Counsel for the F.T. and Page No.# 3/6 Border matters has made his submission in support of the impugned opinion. 4. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the Court does not find it necessary to deal with the pleadings and the evidences that are on record. 5. It would suffice to mention that the petitioner, in his evidence-in- affidavit, had exhibited 7 (seven) documents, being Voter List of 1966 (Ext. A); Voter List of 1970 (Ext. B); Voter List of 1985 (Ext. C); Voter List of 1997 (Ext. D); Voter List of 2010 (Ext. E); Voter List of 2016 (Ext. F) and School Certificate (Ext. G). 6. Based on the said evidence, the learned Tribunal had given his ‘discussion and reasons’ in the impugned opinion, which reads as under – “DISCUSSION & REASONS, I have perused written statement, affidavit and documents on Record, that the Proceedee's purported Father's name is Habibar Rahman. The Proceedee exhibited the link certificate (Ex-G) issued by Rangamati L.P. school certifying Abdul Malek is the son of Habibar Rahman is proved on Record, as reflected in the deposition Head Teacher Rangamati L.P. school, in other words the proceedee could prove that he is the son of Matibar Rahman, but the certified copy of voter list 1966, 1985, 1997 in the name of his father Habibar Rahman, 2010,2016 in the name of the proceedee are not proved on Record, the certified copy of the voter list namely voter list 1970 in the name of father Habibar Rahman is not proved on Record. the documents which are post 25.3.1971 are not relevant, other exhibited documents are also not proved on Record, mere submission of documents are not admissible as evidence to determine the Indian Citizenship of the Proceedee. [Muslem Mandal-Vs- state of Assam 2010 (2)GLT(DB)], he has not proved his place and year of his birth on Record. From the above noted discussion, I have the considered opinion that, the proceedee is a Foreigner who came to Assam on or after 25.3.1971 That, the reference is answered as Affirmative.” 7. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner is also at fault in not taking procedural steps properly. Though, the evidence-on-affidavit was filed on 18.06.2016, but there is no signature or date on the first page thereof, which is normally the filing page. Moreover, none of the exhibits were placed before the Page No.# 4/6 learned Member for marking as Exhibit under the signature of the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal 6th, Dhubri at Bilasipara, Assam. 8. On a perusal of the record, it is seen that the Voter List of 1966 is a photocopy. The Voter Lists of 1970, 1985 and 1997 are certified copies. The Voter Lists of 2010 and 2016 are photocopies of the Electoral Roll and the School Certificate is a counterfoil, which contains the mark of Exhibit ‘G’ and Exhibit 2(1). However, the said School Certificate contains the State Emblem. 9. The record reveals that the Headmaster of the concerned school, i.e., Rangamati L.P. School, was also examined as a witness. However, the ‘Deposition Sheet’ does not refer him as ‘DW-2’. His evidence was recorded on 08.07.2016, which appears from the deposition sheet as well as the order-sheet of 08.07.2016. 10. The record also contains a photocopy of the Identity card of the Headmaster, which was marked as ‘Exhibit 2(I)’ and duly compared and signed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal 6th, Dhubri at Bilasipara, Assam. Thus, there is a repetitive marking of the ‘Exhibit 2(I)’ in the School Certificate (Ext.-G) as well as in the Photocopy of the Identity card, which is available at page no. 49 of the Trial Court Record. 11. The record also reveals that page no. 50 of the TCR is a copy of the School Register, which has been seen and marked by the learned Member under his signature and a photocopy of the School Admission Register was marked as ‘Ext. 2(II)’. 12. The record further reveals that a notice was sent by the learned Tribunal to the Election Officer, No.35 Abhayapuri South (SC) LAC, Sub Division North Salmara, P.S.-Abhayapuri, Dist-Bongaigaon (Assam), regarding a particular Voter Page No.# 5/6 list containing the names of 3 (three) persons, without intimating the years of the Voter list. The said notice is available at page no. 54 of the TCR and the Election Officer, North Salmara, Abhayapuri, by a letter, dated 18.07.2016, had verified the names of 3 (three) persons, whose names were referred by the learned Tribunal and who had appeared in the Voter list of 1966, 1970 and 1985. All the supporting documents which are available at page nos. 55, 56 and 57 of the TCR are countersigned by the Election Officer, North Salmara, Abhayapuri. 13. The Court is surprised to find that though the reply letter dated 18.07.2016, by the Election Officer, North Salmara, Abhayapuri is available on record at page no. 53, the order sheet does not reflect the receipt of the said letter dated 18.07.2016 and enclosures thereto. The order sheet also does not reflect any order regarding the issuance of any notice to the Election Officer, North Salmara, Abhayapuri, to submit any report. Therefore, the impression gathered is to the effect that the proceeding of this case before the learned Tribunal was whimsically conducted and by an opinion that is bereft of any reasoning, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner. 14. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned opinion dated 14.09.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal 6th, Dhubri at Bilasipara, Assam, in F. T. Case No. 6th Dhubri 1-344/2016 (arising out of Ref No.-FT Case No.-04/2016, Tr. No.-768/BLP/11), on the ground that the said opinion is a non-speaking order, bereft of any discussion on pleadings and evidences of the petitioner. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal in the present case is perverse and whimsical as none of the exhibits were signed and the learned Tribunal’s record does not reflect the receipt of the Page No.# 6/6 information sought from the Election Officer, North Salmara, Abhayapuri. 15. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed. 16. The proceeding of F. T. Case No. 6th Dhubri 1-344/2016 (arising out of Ref No.-FT Case No.-04/2016; Tr. No.-768/BLP/11), is hereby remanded to the said learned Tribunal for a fresh opinion, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to have all the exhibited documents to be countersigned by the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal 6th, Dhubri at Bilasipara. Thereafter, on hearing the learned counsel for both sides, a fresh opinion shall be rendered by the said learned Tribunal in accordance with law. 17. The petitioner, who is duly represented by his learned counsel, is directed to appear before the same learned Tribunal on 17.07.2026, and by producing a certified copy of this order, shall await further orders to be passed by the said learned Tribunal. 18. The Registry shall send back the records to the learned Tribunal, along with a copy of this order, to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal. 19. The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters is requested to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Home and Political (B) Department, Govt. Assam. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant