JUDGMENT :

Manojit Bhuyan, J.

On behalf of the respective writ petitioners in the present bunch of cases, being 29 writ petitions, which are being taken up together for final disposal by a common order, we have heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel; Mr. P.N. Sharma, Advocate; Mr. N.N. Upadhyay, Advocate; Mr. D. Sarma, Advocate; Mr. P. Sharmah, Advocate; Mr. A. Upadhyay, Advocate; Mr. N. Upadhyay; Mr. B. Chetri, Advocate; Mr. L.R. Mazumder, Advocate; Mr. D. Sarmah; Mr. K. Boruah, Advocate and Mr. P.J. Saikia, Advocate. We have also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant S.G.I., representing the Union of India; Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India; Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the State of Assam and the other State respondents, and Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel representing the State Co-ordinator, NRC, Assam.

2. Before adverting to the individual facts as emerging from each of the writ petitions, we may first lay down the broad issue for determination involved in this bunch of cases. We are made to determine as to (i) whether from the Investigation/Verification Reports and that of the findings of the Tribunal concerned, conclusion could be derived that the proceedee hails from the 'specified territory', within the meaning of Section 6-A (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, (ii) whether reference by the Referral Authority could at all be made in the first place and/or whether the Tribunal concerned had jurisdiction to try the references if the proceedee concerned was not suspected or found to have come into Assam from the 'specified territory'. In this respect, we may put a note at the very outset that in so far as the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 in the State of Assam are concerned, such Tribunals, in terms of Rule 21 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, has jurisdiction to decide references received from the Registering Authority made under sub-section (3) of Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Further, as defined in the Citizenship Act, 1955, 'specified territory' means the territories included in Bangladesh immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985.

3. The writ petitioners claim to belong to the Gorkha community of Nepali origin and hailing from Nepal, having entered and settled in India on and from various dates, as mentioned in the respective writ petitions. To ascertain this crucial aspect by taking strict recourse to the case records received in original from the Tribunal concerned and/or from relevant materials as available in the records, we undertake the following exercise that would enable us to reach a conclusion :

(1) WP(C)/8490/2018 (Indira Newar vs. Union of India) puts a challenge to the opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal (2nd), Mangaldai in Case No.FT(2) 53/2007, which was rendered ex-parte on account of absence of the petitioner to appear and contest despite due receipt of notice. The petitioner was declared as a foreigner vide the opinion dated 31.03.2008. In the records of the reference proceedings, particularly in the Report dated 25.08.1997 of the Local Verification Officer, the petitioner is shown as the wife of one Chabid Pradhan and her year of birth and place is recorded as 1971 at Rowmari, which is under district Udalguri, Assam. In the said Report, particularly at columns 12 and 13, the mother tongue of the petitioner and the dialect spoken, in the assessment of the Inquiry Officer, is shown as 'Nepali'. Further, at column 16 thereof, no assessment/endorsement is made as regards the place i.e. state/country from where the petitioner is suspected to have migrated from. Even in the impugned opinion dated 31.03.2008 there are no findings with regard to the petitioner of having come to Assam from the 'specified territory'. Neither in the reference made by the Referral Authority there is any indication of the petitioner having come from the 'specified territory'.

(2) WP(C)/4272/2016 (Thagendr