Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. H.A. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the Central Government 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 02.11.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang in BNGN/FT(CHR)/295/08 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory after 25.03.1971.

3. In this case, reference was initially made under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 but after declaration of the said Act as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, the reference was re-registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, as amended, as BNGN/FT(CHR)/295/2008 and after creation of additional Tribunals, the reference was assigned to the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang (Tribunal) for opinion.

4. After hearing the matter, Tribunal passed the order dated 02.11.2016 in the above manner.

5. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

6. On 20.12.2016 when the writ petition was moved, Court was informed that petitioner was taken into custody. In that context, Court passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be deported from India until further orders.

7. Primary contention of Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that reference was made against the petitioner on the allegation that he was suspected to be a foreigner belonging to the 1966-1971 stream. Tribunal committed a manifest error and had exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. Therefore, impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed.

8. In response, Mr. Pegu, learned Govt. Advocate, submits that in so far finding of the Tribunal holding the petitioner to be a foreigner is concerned, the said finding does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. However, on the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that Court may take an appropriate decision in this regard.

9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record.

10. From the materials on record, we find that reference was made against the petitioner by the then police authorities of Bongaigaon with the allegation that he had illegally entered into India from the specified territory during the period 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 on the basis of which the reference proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. This fact was also acknowledged by the Tribunal and recorded in the impugned order dated 02.11.2016. However, in the final conclusion, Tribunal declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream.

11. We will deal with this aspect of the matter a little later. For the moment, we deal with first the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the petitioner was a foreigner who had illegally entered into the State.

12. We notice that in his written statement, petitioner disclosed that he was a citizen of India by birth. But in his deposition before the Tribunal, he stated that his father had migrated to India from the territory now known as Bangladesh when he was a young boy. Certainly, these two statements are contradictory to each other. If one is to be believed, the other has to be discarded. Though petitioner had exhibited some documents to show presence of Late Suresh Das (father of the petitioner) on Indian soil prior to 1971, Tribunal did not accept the evidence adduced by the petitioner to establish his linkage with Suresh Das whom he claimed to be his father. Till this part of the order, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner also did not seriously challenge this finding of the Tribunal.

13.