Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. A common question of law arises in this bunch of writ petitions because of which all the writ petitions were heard together, hearing of which was concluded on 10.04.2018 and today is fixed for delivery of order. The issue which arises in this bunch of writ petitions is as under:-

"Whether the plea of res-judicata as provided under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would be attracted to a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964?"

2. We have heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 797/2017; Mr. Giasuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 7339/2015; Mr. A.S. Tapadar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1238/2017; Mr. U. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 6327/2016 and 2186/2017; Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1333/2016 and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1849/2016. We have also heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, as amicus curiae; Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT) assisted by Mr. A. Kalita, learned Special Counsel, FT.

3. In the course of the hearing, it was made clear to learned counsel for the parties that depending on the outcome of the hearing, individual writ petitions would be taken up separately.

4. The above question of law arose while hearing Mustt. Amina Khatun vs. Union of India, WP (C) No. 7339/2015 which is taken up as the lead case. In this case, a reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur with the allegation that petitioner Amina Khatun was a foreigner. The reference was registered as FT(D) Case No. 3198/2013 before the Foreigners Tribunal No. 3, Sonitpur at Tezpur. By order dated 29.04.2014, the said Tribunal had opined that petitioner Mustt. Amina Khatun was not a doubtful citizen of India.

4.1 Notwithstanding the same, a fresh reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Sonitpur with the allegation that petitioner Mustt. Amina Khatun was a foreigner. On the basis of the said reference, FT Case No. 18/2015 was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal-9th, Sonitpur at Dhekiajuli. The Tribunal at Dhekiajuli answered the reference in favour of the State vide order dated 28.09.2015 by declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

5. This came to be challenged before this Court in the related writ petition, i.e., the lead case being WP (C) No. 7339/2015.

6. Notice in this case was issued on 04.12.2015 with an interim protection.

7. In the course of the hearing on 16.09.2016, this Court posed a question as to whether an opinion rendered by a Foreigners Tribunal in respect of the same procedee would be binding on another Foreigners Tribunal following further reference made by the State. Having regard to the importance of the issue, Court requested Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, to assist the Court as amicus curiae.

8. Similar issue has arisen in the subsequent writ petitions.

9. In WP (C) No. 797/2017, petitioner Md. Amiruddin Mazumdar has assailed the legality and validity of the notice issued to the petitioner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No. 10th at Doboka in FT Case No. 928/2015 on the ground that petitioner was already declared to be not a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai in Case No. FT/H/303/2013, State vs. Md. Amiruddin.

10. This Court by order dated 14.02.2017 had issued notice while staying further proceedings in FT Case No. 928/2015.

11. In all the cases, the common question which arises is whether an opinion rendered by a Foreigners Tribunal in respect of the same procedee would be binding on another Foreigners Tribunal or the same Foreigners Tribunal following further or fresh reference made by the State.

12. As the hear