NANI TAGIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. AM Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Sarmah, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 5 & 6; Ms. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms. A Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1st, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 320/2016 whereby the petitioner/opposite party has been opined to be a foreigner of Post 1971 stream.

3. A reference case under the IM (D)T Act against the writ petitioner/opposite party was initiated by the Supdt. of Police (B), Barpeta under Reference Case No. 6601(A) /1998 alleging that the writ petitioner/opposite party, namely, Diluwara Khatun, W/o Saber of village- Rangapani, PS- Barpeta in the district of Barpeta to be a foreigner. As per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.07.2005 in WP(C) No.131/2000, the case stood transferred to Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1st, Barpeta.

4. Upon receipt of Notice, the opposite party filed her written statement and evidence on affidavit stating inter-alia that she is a bonafide citizen of India, born and brought up at village- Sidli, PS- Baghbar, Dist.- Barpeta, Assam. The writ petitioner/proceedee stated that her father’s name is Iyashin Khan, whose name appeared in the Voter Lists of 1966 and 1970 in Sl.No.88 & 109 respectively as House No.27, Part No.78, 79 of village Dakhin Sidli, 51 No. Jania LAC. Voter List of 1966 and 1970 have been exhibited as Exhibits- A & E respectively.

5. In order to establish linkage with her father, the petitioner has exhibited Exhibits- B, C & D. Exhibit-B is the certificate dated 25.06.2015 issued by the Secretary, 78 No. Sitoli Gaon Panchayat. Exhibit- C is the certificate dated 28.09.2016 issued by the Village Headmas of Sitoli, Dakshin Sitoli and Exhibit -D is the certificate dated 23.09.2017 issued by Gaonburah of Charge No.15, 17 & 18 of village- Lurfuria, Gagalmara, Gobindapur, Kayemari, Gorala, 4 No.Bhera, Siltoli, Dakshin Sitoli, Mouza- Jania, PO- Sitoli/Kadong, PS & Dist. Barpeta.

6. Although in the certificates issued by the Secretary and Gaonburah, which has been marked as Exhibit-B & C, the proceedee has been shown to be daughter of Eashin Khan, nevertheless none of the issuing authority and/or authors of the said certificates were examined before the Tribunal in order to prove the authenticity of the document itself as well as the authenticity of the contents of the said certificates. The manner in which the such certificates/documents are to be proved have been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupajan Begum Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579, wherein, in paragraph-16, it has been held as follows:

“16. The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary, by no means, is proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a citizen) is established. The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is the authenticity of the contents thereof. The latter process of verification is bound to be an exhaustive process in the course of which the source of information of the facts and all other details recorded in the certificate will be ascertained after giving an opportunity to the holder of the certificate.”

7. In the absence of such exercise being undertaken by the writ petitioner/proceedee before the Tribunal below, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupajan Begum (supra), Exhibit- B & C must be held to be inadmissible in law and no reliance can be placed on those exhibits by this Court in favour of the writ petitioner.

8. Further, on perusal of Exhibit-D, we find that there is a State Emblem embossed on the top of it. With