Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner, who has been identified as 'D' (Doubtful) voter, has filed this writ petition, challenging the proceeding that has been initiated against him by the Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara vide FT Case No. 5368/G/12 arising out of district Case No. 793/2010. Apart from claiming that initiation of such proceeding is uncalled for in view of the fact that the petitioner is an Indian citizen, the said proceeding has also been questioned on the ground of pendency of a suit being Title Suit No. 95/2012 in the Court of the learned Munsif No. 1, Goalpara, by which the petitioner as the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that he is an Indian citizen as defined in the Citizenship Act and that the alphabet "D" shown against his name in the electoral roll be removed entitling him to cast votes in elections. Having regard to the importance of the issue involved, which is, as to whether in view of the existing special law for determination of citizenship issue, a civil suit is maintainable towards determination of one's citizenship, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned ASGI was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae, more particularly when the Union of India is also party respondent in the writ petition. Similarly, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. AAG, Assam was also requested to assist the Court. Both of them readily agreed to do so.

2. The writ petition was first entertained on 24.1.2013 and thereafter adjourned to 28.1.2013. On that day, Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a week's time and suggested the next date as 13.2.2013. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned and could be taken up for final hearing on 21.2.2013, on which date Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the first instance, wanted to withdraw the writ petition to which Mr. Pathak, learned ASGI, acting as Amicus Curiae, raised objection having regard to the importance of the issue involved. Eventually, the learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for final adjudication of the matter and made his submissions. In addition to his oral submission, he also submitted a written argument.

3. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that irrespective of filing the suit by the petitioner, he has already responded to the proceeding before the Tribunal. However, on being asked as to what will be the consequence of two simultaneous proceedings, he submitted that it is the judgement and decree in the civil Court proceeding which will prevail over the opinion rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal. Referring to the notice dated 13.12.2012 served on the petitioner including his other family members, Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said notice having not contained the grounds on which they are alleged to be foreigners, it is difficult on the part of the petitioner to effectively respond to the said notice.

4. Both Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Amicus Curiae and ASGI and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. AAG, Assam, opposing the said submission submitted that the civil suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the existing special provisions in the form of Citizenship Acst, 1955; Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (tribunal) Order, 1964. In addition, they also referred to the constitutional provisions relating to citizenship.

5. Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in reference to the written argument submitted by him, submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of India, his grand parents' names having appeared in the NRC of 1951 and voter list of 1966. It was also submitted that his father's name was in the voter list of 1966 onwards upto 1989. It was also submitted that his father expired in 1996 and that the petitioner's name along with the other family members appeared in the voter lists from 1989 onwards. However, in April, 2011, the petitioner was prevented from casting his votes by the Presiding Officer