Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

This case was heard on 20.04.2018 and today is fixed for delivery of order(s).

2. Heard Dr J L Sarkar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr S Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr A Kalita, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners' Tribunal (FT).

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 24.08.2016, passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal, Nagaon Court No. 7 at Lanka in FT/L/Case No. 116 of 2015 (State v. Smt Bela Rani Debnath), declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

4. This Court by order dated 05.10.2016, had issued notice while requisitioning the case record and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should be allowed to remain on bail, subject to her appearance before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon and furnishing of adequate surety.

5. Sri D Mukherjee, Superintendent of Police (Border), Hojai, has filed affidavit on 19.01.2017, supporting the order passed by the Tribunal and seeking dismissal of the writ petition. However, in paragraph-5 of the said affidavit, which was in response to the statements made in paragraph - 7 of the writ petition, it was stated that mother's name of the petitioner appeared in the voters' list of 1971 in respect of Lumding constituency as Binoda Devi, wife of Dhirendra. Thereafter, petitioner has filed affidavit on 31.03.2018.

6. Dr Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no grounds were mentioned in the notice. Notice was the foundation of the reference. In the absence of grounds, the proceeding registered against the petitioner cannot be justified. His second submission is that mother of the petitioner Binoda Devi was registered as a refugee on 11.12.1964. Therefore, petitioner cannot be treated to be a foreigner. Third submission is that since the Superintendent of Police (Border), Hojai has himself stated in his affidavit that mother's name, i.e. Binoda Devi had appeared in the voters' list of 1971 in respect of Lumding constituency, this would go to show that even the authority did not dispute or did not have doubts about the nationality of the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, Mr A Kalita, learned Special Counsel submits that petitioner had miserably failed to prove her citizenship of India relatable to a period prior to 25.03.1971, which is the cut-off date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section-6 A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended. Petitioner has to prove her nationality through her father and not through her mother or husband, which she failed to do.

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

9. Record discloses that an enquiry was conducted by the police administration of the then Nagaon district after suspecting the petitioner to be a foreign national. As per report of the Enquiry Officer, during enquiry petitioner could not produce any valid document to prove her Indian nationality. Therefore, a prima facie view was taken that the petitioner was a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream, who had unauthorizedly entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh. Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, accepted the enquiry report and, thereafter, made the reference suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh on or after 25.03.1971 without valid documents.

10. So this was the basic allegation against the petitioner.

11. It is true that in the notice issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner on 28.09.2015, the stream of foreigners to which petitioner was suspected to belong was not mentioned. It was stated that Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, had made a reference to the effect that petitioner was a foreigner. Therefore, petitioner was ca