A.M. BUJOR BARUA, J.

1. Heard Mr. MU Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Kalita, learned Counsel appearing for the Foreigners’ Tribunal and Border Areas. Also heard Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Ms. A Verma, learned standing counsel for the authorities under the NRC as well as Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India.

2. The petitioner was referred by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Darrang at Mangaldoi, resulting in IM (D)T Case No.381 of 2000 before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Darrang. Upon the IM (D)T Act of 1983 being declared ultra vires, the reference made against the petitioner was transferred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1, Mangaldoi and it was re-numbered as F.T. Case No. 2826 of 2011.

3. By the order dated 30.08.2018, an opinion was rendered that the petitioner is a foreigner from the illegal migrants who had entered into India after 25.03.1971.

4. The order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2018 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that upon the matter being transferred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1, a notice was served on the petitioner that he is alleged to be a person who entered into India between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971. As a consequence, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal in its order of 30.08.2018 could not have declared the petitioner to be a foreigner who entered the territory of India after 25.03.1971. In this respect, the petitioner relies upon an earlier pronouncement of this Court rendered in Santosh Das–vs-Union of India & Ors reported in 2017 (2) 1065 wherein in paragraph-16, it has been provided as below:

“16. From a careful reading of Order 2(1), what is discernible is that a reference is made to a Tribunal for its opinion whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Tribunal gets its jurisdiction to render its opinion only when a reference is made to it. Without a reference being made, Tribunal cannot exercise its jurisdiction to opine that a person is or is not a foreigner. It is only when a reference is made as above that the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction to its opinion. Therefore, to our mind, Tribunal would have to confine to the terms of the reference made to it and cannot go beyond the same. Admittedly, in this case, reference was that petitioner was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory during the period 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971. The Tribunal was required to answer the reference either in favour of the State or in favour of the proceedee. If the reference was to be answered in favour of the State and it was answered rightly so by the Tribunal, the natural corollary would be that petitioner is a foreigner belonging to the 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 stream. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that the Foreigners Act, 1946 or the Orders framed thereunder do not bind it to the terms of the reference is not correct.”

5. The law laid down by this Court clearly postulates that a person cannot be declared to be an illegal migrant who entered India after 25.03.1971 in a proceeding where the notice served indicates that the allegation is that he entered between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971.

6. Mr. A Kalita, learned counsel for the State respondents further points out that there is another pronouncement of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Ananda Ghosh-vs-Union of India & Ors reported in (2017) 2 GLT 996, wherein in paragraph -13, it has been held as under:

“13. Having regard to the above, we have no hesitation to hold that when the reference was as to whether petitioner was a foreigner belonging to the post 25.03.1971 stream, non-mentioning of the same or wrong-mentioning of the stream of foreigners to which the petitioner belongs in the notices would not vitiate the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal that petitioner was a