Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010095832018 2026:GAU-AS:9225 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3940/2018 RADHESHYAM NATH AND 3 ORS. S/O- LATE BAISHNAB CHARAN NATH R/O- VILL- NIZ MIKIRBHETA P.O- MIKIRBHETA P.S- MIKIRBHETA PIN- 782106 DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM 2: MONI NATH @ MONI RANI DEVI W/O- SRI RADHESHYAM NATH D/O- SRI SHYAM BINOD DEBNATH R/O- VILL- NIZ MIKIRBHETA P.O- MIKIRBHETA P.S- MIKIRBHETA PIN- 782106 DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM 3: SANJAY NATH S/O- SRI RADHESHYAM NATH R/O- VILL- NIZ MIKIRBHETA P.O- MIKIRBHETA P.S- MIKIRBHETA PIN- 782106 DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM 4: RATNA DEVI @ NATH W/O- RAJIB CHANDRA MAZUMDAR D/O- SRI RADHESHYAM NATH R/O- VILL- NIZ MIKIRBHETA P.O- MIKIRBHETA P.S- MIKIRBHETA PIN- 782106 DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA Page No.# 2/17 MIN OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2:THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 5:THE STATE COORDINATOR OFFICE OF THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC ASSAM 1ST FLOOR ACHYUT PLAZA G SROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(B) MORIGAON DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM 8:THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. K LAHKAR Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. Page No.# 3/17 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. K. Lahkar. Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. J Payeng, SC, Home Deptt. & NRC, Mr. P. Sarma, GA, Assam Mr. N.Kalita, on behalf of Mr A.I. Ali, SC, ECI, Mr. U. K. Goswami, CGC. Date on which judgment was reserved :12.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : operative part of the judgment?: NA Whether the full judgment has been :Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (Shamima Jahan, J.) Heard Mr. K. Lahkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department and NRC, Mr. P. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam, Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel representing Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned CGC, appearing for the Union of India. 2. At the outset, it be stated here that the instant writ petition was filed by four numbers of writ petitioners, but this Court, by order dated 29.01.2025, had directed that the opinion dated 18.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Page No.# 4/17 Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Morigaon, in FT (C) Case No. 195 of 2015, in respect of petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4, was held to be bad in law and the same was set aside and quashed. It was quashed for the reason that the entire enquiry and the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, to the said Foreigners’ Tribunal, only with regard to the petitioner No. 1, namely, Sri Radheshyam Nath. As such, we are to examine the present case, only with respect to petitioner No. 1. 2. The petitioner has filed this application with the endeavor to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the opinion dated 18.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Morigaon, Assam, in FT (C) No. 195 of 2015, corresponding to IM(D)T Case No. 225 of 2000 dated 24.07.2000, whereby the petitioner along with family members were declared as a foreigners of post-25.03.1971 stream. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner as citizen of India. The petitioner has also made an additional prayer that in the alternative, a direction be issued to respondent No. 8, i.e., the Foreigners’ Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) to register the name of the petitioner in terms of provisions enshrined under Section 6-A (3) of Citizenship Act, 1955. FACTS 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was born in the year 1963, and that his father’s name was Late Baisnab Charan Nath of Village-Deccaipatty, Nagaon, Assam. He stated that he is a business man by profession and he got married to Smt. Moni Nath @ Moni Rani Devi, on 18.04.1983. Page No.# 5/17 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that his father, son of Late Mahendra Kumar Nath, came from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in the year 1960, and got his name registered on 20.02.1968, before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, under the provision of Section 5(I)(a)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The petitioner further stated that his father initially settled at Deccaipatty, Nagaon, and thereafter, shifted to Thengsali, under Mikirbheta Police Station in the year 1969 and that he voted in the year 1970. He further stated that his father, thereafter, shifted to Niz-Mikirbheta and that he casted his vote in the year 1985, and also that the name of the petitioner’s father was included in the NRC of 1970. 5. It is, thereafter, stated by the petitioner that his father died in the year 1978, and that subsequently, the petitioner obtained legal heir certificate from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaon, on 18.03.2004. He also stated that he has four brothers and that a reference case was instituted against his mother and his brother as well as his sister-in-law and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.1988, declared them as foreigners within the stream of 1966 to 1971 and directed them to get their names registered in terms of the provisions of Section 6-A (3) of the Citizenship Act. However, on failure to get their names registered, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking direction to the respondent authorities for registration of their names and this Court vide order dated 04.01.2010, directed respondent No. 8, to register their names under the said provision. 6. Apart from the same, the petitioner also stated that the sister-in-law and nephew of the petitioner were suspected to be foreigners and a case was registered against them and the said relatives of the petitioner exhibited a Page No.# 6/17 Citizenship Registration Certificate of 1956, issued to the father of his sister-in- law, as well as the Citizenship Registration Certificate, issued to the father of the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the said relatives were declared as Indian citizens by the learned Tribunal. 7. The petitioner stated that after the Learned Tribunal accepted his and his relative’s case for adjudication, he received the notice from the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3rd, Morigaon, with regard to the instant case, and on receipt of the same, the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement along with documents in support of his defence. The said written statement was, however, filed jointly, by the petitioner, along with his other family members, who are not before this Court now. 8. In the written statement, the petitioner had categorically stated that his father and his grandfather came from East Pakistan, and settled at Deccaipatty, Nagaon, and that his father obtained the Certificate of Registration from the Deputy Commissioner, as stated above. He also stated above that the father has changed his place of residence to Village-Thankhali, in the district of Morigaon. The petitioner further shifted to Village-Niz-Mikirbheta and that he casted his vote in the year 1985. He also stated that his father voted in the year 1970 and that further, his father obtained Certificate of Registration, vide Serial No. 105/1968 and the Registration Number was 287871, and further that his father purchased a plot of land at Kisam-Mikirbheta gaon, in the District of undivided Nagaon, on 25.03.1968. He further stated that he got married in the year 1983 and from the said wedlock, one son and one daughter were born. 9. The petitioner had given his evidence as DW No. 1, and he stated the same statements as were stated in the written statement. He exhibited the Page No.# 7/17 following documents:- i) Exhibit-A is the 1970 Voters’ List, showing his father’s name as a voter. ii) Exhibit-B is the petitioner’s school certificate. iii) Exhibit-C is the Citizenship Certificate of his father. iv) Exhibit-D is the Gaon Panchayat Certificate. v) Exhibit-E is the Citizenship Certificate of his father-in-law. vi) Exhibit-F is the 1977 Voters’ List showing his father-in-law’s name as a voter. vii) Exhibit-G is the registered sale deed executed by his father -in-law. viii) Exhibit-H to K are the school certificates with regard to his relatives. ix) Exhibit-L is the 1985 Voters’ List, showing petitioner’s name. 10. The wife of the petitioner was examined as DW No. 2 and she stated that petitioner is her husband and her grandfather was issued a Citizenship Certificate in 1968 and that her father had also landed property in Nagaon. She, during her cross-examination stated that she has a brother and that one son and a daughter. On the basis of the said evidence adduced by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal had held as follows:- i) Although petitioner had exhibited 1970 Voters’ List to show that his father was a voter, but the said voters’ list only contained a single name that is of his father. Page No.# 8/17 ii) The Certificate of Registration belonging to petitioner’s father produced was a proved-in-certificate, as the original certificate was stated to be exhibited in another case and the said certificate not being the original was not considered to be genuine. On the basis of the said findings, the learned Tribunal had declared the petitioner as a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream. SUBMISSIONS: 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K Lahkar has submitted that the Certificate of Registration in the name of his father was exhibited in the case of his relative and the same could not be exhibited in original in his case, however, he submitted that the certificates, in fact, were issued by the administration to his father. He relied on the school certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and in the said certificate, it was stated that petitioner had attended his final examination of Class-III and that his date of birth was 31.12.1973. He also stated that the petitioner’s father appeared as a voter in the year 1970 from Village-Thengsali, Mouza-Charaibahi, in the District of Nagaon. He further submitted that the petitioner’s name was reflected along with his mother and brothers in the table of heirs after his fathers’ death. He also submitted that in respect of the petitioner’s brother’s wife and petitioner’s brother’s son, the Tribunal had declared them as Indians and that the said opinion would have a bearing on the petitioner’s case as well. The learned counsel relied on a judgment rendered by this Court in Paramesh Sarmah Vs. Islam Ali, reported in 2000 (3) GLT 453, by which this Court had observed that if the document is more than 30 years old and Page No.# 9/17 produced from proper custody, Court may presume about its authenticity and the same can be introduced in evidence without formal proof. As such the Counsel prays that the Certificate of Registration issued to his father be considered for establishing the fact that petitioner is an Indian Citizen. 10. Mr. J Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for Home Department and NRC, on the other hand, has submitted that the documents exhibited by the petitioner were not proved and most of the documents were in relation to his relatives. He submits that if the petitioner’s father was registered as a citizen of India in 1968, and the petitioner was stated to be born in 1963, then by virtue of Section 5 of Citizenship Act, more specifically, Section 5 (1) (d), the petitioner being at the relevant juncture, a minor child should have been there in the certificate. He also submits that in the 1985 Voters’ List, the petitioner’s name appears alone, without his family members, which raises a doubt about the petitioner being the son of Late Baishnab Charan Das. Further, he stated that the alleged fact to the effect that sister-in-law of the petitioner was declared an Indian citizen was not mentioned in the written statement filed by the petitioner, which also raises doubts. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 11. The principal argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certificate of registration was issued to his projected father by authorities was, however, not placed in original before the learned Tribunal. Moreover, the petitioner could not place any documents proving the fact that he is the son of Late Baishnab Charan Nath. The only document that the petitioner had placed in his favour which can be given some relevancy is the document issued by Sub- Divisional Officer (Sadar), Nagaon, dated 18th of March, 2004, by which the Page No.# 10/17 petitioner was shown as one of the heirs of Baishnab Charan Nath, i.e., the projected father of the petitioner. However, a bare perusal of the said documents reveals that the same was issued on the basis of an affidavit and the Voters’ List of 1985. In the present proceeding, the affidavit mentioned hereinabove, was not placed or exhibited. Further, the Voters’ List of 1985 exhibited by the petitioner contained only the name of the petitioner without his family members. In Aziz Miya -vs- Union of India, reported in 2023 (4) GLT 46, this Court had held that Voters’ List is not sufficient to prove the nationality of a proceedee, in absence of other documents on record. The relevant portion is quoted hereinbelow:- “13. On facts of the present case, we have noticed that the inquiring authority in its report dated 28.03.2001 had stated that during the inquiry the petitioner had produced the voters' list of 1966 which belonged to his father and therefore, the petitioner is not a foreigner. 14. We are constrained to observe that a mere claim by a suspected person by referring to a voters’ list claiming a person therein to be his father is not a conclusive proof and that by doing so, the person has discharged the burden Page No.# 10/11 2023:GAU-AS:8636-D 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. 15. Accordingly, the report of the inquiring authority on its own cannot be viewed to be conclusive in nature that the petitioner is not a foreigner. From such point of view, we do not notice any infirmity in the reference made by the Superintendant of Police (Border), Kamrup to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M) for rendering an opinion as to whether the petitioner is a foreigner who entered the State of Assam from the specified territory." 12. Further in another decision of this Court in Basiron Bibi Vs. Union of Page No.# 11/17 India reported in 2018 (1) GLT 372, the earlier decision in the case of Abdul Matali @ Mataleb Vs. Union of India, reported in 2015 (2) GLT 617, was distinguished. The relevant portion in Basiron Bibi’s case (supra) is quoted here-in-below:- 30. Reliance placed in the case of Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (Md.) (supra), can be of no assistance to the petitioner inasmuch, as it has already been clarified by this Court in previous decisions that the said decision did not lay down any law and was a decision confined to the facts and circumstances of that case. Regarding discrepancies in the voters' lists which the petitioner contended were not her creation being entered into by officials of Election Commission and therefore should not be used adversely against the petitioner, such contention is Page No.# 9/17 without any substance. The voters' lists were adduced as evidence by the petitioner herself to prove her case that she was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. Petitioner cannot insist that only that portions of the voters' lists which are in her favour should be accepted and those portions going against her should be over-looked. This is not how a document put forward as a piece of evidence should be examined. The document has to be appreciated as a whole." 13. Furthermore, the Legal Heir Certificate stated to have been issued on 18.03.2004, was not placed before the learned Tribunal and the same was not exhibited. The said document was also not proved as required under the law, and in view of the same, the said certificate is not relevant for the purpose of adjudication in the instant case. 14. The further reliance on the school certificate in respect of the petitioner, showing that he attended the final examination of Class-III, in Mikirbheta Balak Primary School is of no relevance in the instant case, inasmuch, as the said document was not proved neither the contents thereof. The Headmaster of the Page No.# 12/17 said school was not brought as a defence witness in proof of the contents of the said document. 15. It is no res integra that written statement is the basic document which is supposed to lay down the foundation of the case of the proceedee and the written statement in the instant case lacks details and is wholly vague as stated above. There is no date of birth of the petitioner barring the year of birth and there is no statement with respect of the petitioner’s siblings. In this connection, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal -vs- Union of India, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, may be referred hereinbelow:- “17. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Some times the place of birth of his grand parents may also be relevant like u/s 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.…” 16. Further, the petitioner had also not mentioned about the alleged fact that his sister-in-law and his nephew were declared as Indian citizens by a learned Tribunal in his written statement. As such, the basic information are absent in Page No.# 13/17 his written statement. 17. It is also no res integra that the burden of proof as laid down in Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act of 1946, is solely upon the proceedee and the said burden never shifts. In the said Section, there is non-obstante clause which suggest that the provisions of Indian Evidence Act would not be appliable. Section 9 is extracted below:- “ 9. Burden of proof.— If in any case not falling under section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), lie upon such person.” 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed in case of Fateh Mohd. Vs. Delhi Administration; reported in AIR 1963 SC 1035 that the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, lies upon such person only. In the said decision, the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Ghaus Mohammad -vs- Union of India ; reported in AIR 1961 SC 1526 was relied on. The relevant extract from Fateh Mohd. (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- “By reason of S. 9 of the Foreigners Act whenever a question arises whether a person is or is not a foreigner, the onus of proving that he is not a foreigner lies upon him. The burden is therefore upon the appellant to establish that he is a citizen of India in the manner claimed by him and therefore he is not a foreigner. This court in Page No.# 14/17 Union of India v. Gyaus Mohammad, (1962) 1 SCR 744 : (AIR 1961 SC 1526), accepted this legal position and laid down at p. 748 (of SCR), thus : "It does not seems to have realised that the burden of proving that he was not foreigner, was on the respondent and appears to have placed that burden on the Union. This was a wholly wrong approach to the question." Rightly throwing the onus on the appellant the Magistrate considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that he was a citizen of India and therefore not a foreigner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after noticing that the onus was on the appellant considered the evidence, both oral and documentary and came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus. It cannot be and indeed is not suggested that the said finding is vitiated by any error of law, but it is contended that the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in ignoring the evidence of respectable witnesses who spoke to the fact that the appellant was born in India and continued to reside in India at the date of the commencement of the Constitution and thereafter. The learned Additional Sessions Judge as a Judge of fact considered the evidence in the light of probabilities and the documentary evidence and rejected the same as unworthy of credence. The High Court in revision refused to interfere with that finding. We do not see any permissible ground for interference with that finding in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 19. Furthermore, while adjudicating the issue involved in the instant petition, we are reminded that a writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should confine its powers only towards examination of the decision making process. In the present case, the Tribunal had given its findings based on facts, and it is a trite law that findings of facts are not liable to be interfered with, by a writ Court under its certiorari jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing the previous case laws on the jurisdiction of a Writ Court with regard to the Writ of Certiorari had held in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another -vs- Bikartan Page No.# 15/17 Das; .reported in AIR 2023 SC 4011, as follows:- “49. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe something important in the aforesaid context: Two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. 50. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking. 51. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not. 20. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another, reported in AIR 1954 SC 440, the Hon’b;le Apex Court had laid down the essential features of a writ of certiorari. In the said Page No.# 16/17 decision, it has been exhaustively explained by B.K. Mukherjea, J that writ in the nature of certiorari could be issued in ‘all appropriate cases and in appropriate manner’ so long as the broad and fundamental principles are kept in mind. It was held as follows:- “7. … In granting a writ of ‘certiorari’, the superior court does not exercise the powers of an appellate tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal ….. 8. The supervision of the superior court exercised through writs of certiorari goes on two points, as has been expressed by Lord Summer in King v. Nat Bell Liquors Limited [(1922) 2 AC 128, 156]. One is the area of inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its exercise; the other is the observance of law in the course of its exercise. …. 9. Certiorari may lie and is generally granted when a court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.” As such, we observe herein that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal although for the ends of justice, some exercise has been done to the said effect. 21. Further, it will not be out of context to mention herein that wife of the petitioner had adduced evidence and the same was not in connection with discharging of the burden cast upon the petitioner. Since the proceeding against the petitioner was taken along with his wife and other family members, his wife had given evidence for herself and the learned Tribunal had declared the petitioner as well as his wife and other family members as foreigners which, however was not in accordance with law, as stated above. 22. Since in the instant case, it is noticed from above that Certificate of Page No.# 17/17 Registration was not produced in original neither the link was established by the petitioner with his projected father by way of valid documents, moreso, in absence of legal heir certificate being exhibited before the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the opinion dated 18.05.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No 3rd, Morigaon, in FT(C) Case No. 195 of 2015, does not call for any interference. 23. The writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The actions consequent upon the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal would follow in accordance with law. 24. The records of the learned Tribunal be returned forthwith, along with a copy of this order. 25. It is, however, made clear that the present order shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner to file appropriate application under the Citizenship Amendment Act and if the same is done, such application(s) is to be considered in accordance with law. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant