U. Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel and Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. K. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam.

2. This case was heard on 16.05.2017 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment. Accordingly, judgment is dictated in the open court.

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 31.10.2016, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Goalpara in F.T. 2. Case No.29/K/2015 declaring the petitioner to be an illegal migrant who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory i.e., Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

4. It appears that on a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara with the allegation that petitioner was an illegal migrant as above, FT 2 Case No.29/K/2015 was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal No.2, Goalpara (Tribunal). Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner where after she had entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegation made, by claiming herself to be a citizen of India by birth. Petitioner also deposed as her witness and was cross-examined. She submitted photocopies of certain documents before the Tribunal in support of her claim. After hearing the matter, Tribunal passed the order dated 31.10.2016 by answering the reference in favour of the State in the above manner.

5. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

6. When this writ petition was moved on 29.11.2016, it was submitted that following the order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner was taken into custody. On such submission made, order dated 29.11.2016 was passed, issuing notice while requisitioning the case record with an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be deported from Indian until further orders.

7. Before adverting to the rival submissions made at the Bar, it may be mentioned that in the course of hearing on 27.03.2017, Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and that she was lodged in the Kokrajhar District Jail serving as detention centre for declared foreigners. Having regard to the submissions made, Superintendent of Kokrajhar District Jail was directed to extend medical assistance to the petitioner as and when required.

8. In the subsequent hearing on 16.05.2017, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had given birth to a baby girl on 29.04.2017 and that she was in the RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar post delivery. After the arguments were closed on 16.05.2017, it was directed that till delivery of judgment petitioner should be retained in the said hospital.

9. Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that approach of the Tribunal was too technical. For minor discrepancies in the age of the petitioner, her claim to citizenship of India was disbelieved causing serious prejudice to her. While admitting that relatives of the petitioner could have contested the reference before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner in a better way, he submits that brother of the petitioner Zakir Hussain has filed an additional affidavit in the present proceeding enclosing therewith relevant documents which the court may consider along with the documents annexed to the writ petition by the petitioner herself. These documents prima facie show that petitioner is a citizen of India. He submits that petitioner has adequate documents to buttress her claim of being a citizen of India. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter. While making the aforesaid prayer, learned senior counsel has elaborately taken us through the documents annexed to the writ petition to show that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous.

10. On the other hand, Mr. D. K. Saikia, learned Addl. Advoc