Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned amicus curiae and Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT). In this case, initially, Mr. N.H. Mazarbhuiyari and his team had represented the petitioner but subsequently on 22.5.2017, Mr. N. Islam, learned counsel who had represented the petitioner, stated that relatives of the petitioner had taken back the brief from his chamber. In such circumstances, the following order was passed on 22.05.2017:-

"Office note dated 11.03.2016 indicates that LCR has been received.

Mr. N. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that relatives of the petitioner had taken back the brief from their chamber.

Two weeks time granted for the petitioner to make alternative arrangement failing which Court may proceed with the matter.

Case be listed in the admission column after two weeks."

2. On the next date, i.e. on 10.01.2018, since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court took the view that it would be in the interest of justice to engage an advocate of the Court as amicus curiae to represent the petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned counsel, who was present in the Court, was appointed as amicus curiae.

3. Case was heard on 27.03.2018 and today is fixed for delivery of order.

4. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Diphu in Case No. FT (C) 667/2006, State vs. Bijoy Das declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory, i.e. Bangladesh on or after 25.03.1971.

5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record, including the record requisitioned from the Tribunal.

6. Record discloses that initially the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Karbi Anglong under Section 8(1) of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Diphu suspecting the petitioner to be an illegal migrant. Be it stated that under Section 3(1)(C) of the IMDT Act, an illegal migrant was defined as a foreigner who had unauthorisedly entered into India after 25.03.1971. The reference was registered as IMDT Case No. D. 842/1998.

7. It appears from the record that from 1998 till 03.05.2006 only orders pertaining to issuance of notice and re-issuance of notice to the petitioner was passed without any endeavour for affecting service of notice. Almost 8 years were spent in this way.

8. IMDT Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, with the further direction that the references which were pending before the Tribunals constituted under the IMDT Act should be transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. As a result, the related reference was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Diphu whereafter it was re-registered as FT(C) Case No. 667/2006.

9. In his written statement filed before the Tribunal on 19.06.2010, petitioner stated that he was born and brought up at Namdoboka Block under Doboka Police Station in the then district of Nagaon. In search of livelihood, he had migrated to Dengaon village about 25 years back and since then he had been residing there. His father was Bipul Krishna Das and he was a voter of Hojai constituency in 1966. Petitioner became a voter of Hojai constituency in 1997.

10. This was all that the petitioner stated in his written statement which by any account was wholly inadequate to establish his identity as a citizen of India having regard to the mandate of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 as explained by the Supreme Court in paragraph 26 of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra). There was no disclosure of petitioner's date or year of birth and consequently