Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-5, Tezpur at Biswanath Chariali (Tribunal) in FT Case No.132/2015 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971.

3. This Court by order dated 29.04.2016 had issued notice and requisitioned the case record. It was submitted before the Court that following the above order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner was taken into custody.

4. One of the contentions advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that in the notice issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner, it was mentioned that petitioner was a foreigner belonging to the 1966-1971 stream. Therefore, Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. Additionally, it is the submission that Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the petitioner in the correct perspective and thereafter had recorded an erroneous finding which is required to be interfered with by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that reference against the petitioner was registered with the allegation that he was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. Therefore, Tribunal did not commit any mistake in answering the reference in the above manner. Further submission is that finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. Such a finding of fact may not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Also perused the record requisitioned from the Tribunal.

7. From the record, it is seen that in the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 03.04.2001, it was mentioned in Column 4(b) that petitioner's nationality was Bangladeshi and that he had left his country of origin on account of poverty. In Column 12, it was mentioned that petitioner had entered into India after 25.03.1971. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer observed that petitioner was an illegal migrant who had entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. Accordingly, case was sent to the Screening Committee for screening. Be it stated that at that point of time, Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 was in force and the said Act provided for constitution of a Screening Committee to screen the references before being forwarded to the Tribunals constituted under the said Act. Thereafter, the Screening Committee on 03.03.2004, observed that it was a fit case to be forwarded to the Tribunal at Tezpur.

8. Following the same, Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur made a reference to the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Sonitpur at Tezpur on 14.06.2004 under Section 8(1) of the said Act for opinion as to whether the proceedee (petitioner herein) was an illegal migrant or not. In the statement of facts and allegation, it was clearly stated that the proceedee (petitioner herein) was a Bangladeshi national who had entered into India through unauthorised routes and without valid documents after 25.03.1971.

9. In the notice issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner on 20.01.2015, it was stated that allegation made against him by the Superintendent of Police was that he had illegally entered into Assam between 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971. In the second notice issued to the petitioner on 28.09.2015, which was in printed form, it contained two categories of foreigners, i.e., those who had illegally entered Assam after 25.03.1971 and those between 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971. However, Tribunal