ORDER :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned C.G.C. for respondent No. 1, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents No. 2 to 5.

2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the opinion dated 05.05.2017, given by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 2nd, Dhemaji at Silapathar in F.T. (D) Case No. 2ND Dhemaji 1- 207/2016 on the basis of reference forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhemaji. By the said opinion, the reference was answered in the affirmative by holding the petitioner to be a foreigner.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned opinion and he has submitted that based on the reference, three cases were registered against the petitioner, his mother and brother before the learned Foreigners Tribunal 2nd, Dhemaji at Silapathar, being F.T. (D) Case No. 207/2016, 208/2016 and 209/2019. However, as during the pendency of the cases, the mother and the brother of the petitioner had died, the F.T.'(D) Case No. 208/2016 and 209/2019 were closed and, as such, only F.T.(D) Case No. 207/2016 continued against the petitioner.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in the written statement and has submitted that the petitioner had made statement of all relevant facts in his written statement and that the petitioner had also annexed all the relevant documents to the written statement. By referring to the provisions of the Foreigners Tribunal (Order), 1964 it is submitted that the requirement of law is that a proceedee only had to make a representation and to produce evidence in support of her case. It is submitted that as the rigours of the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, 1872 is not applicable, except for summoning and enforcing attendance of any person, discovery and production of any document, issuing commission for examining any witness, etc., the provisions of Foreigners Tribunal (Order), 1964 did not envisage filing of evidence on affidavit by the proceedee or for recording oral examination-in-chief of the proceedee and to formally prove documents in accordance with the principles laid down in Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, 1872. Accordingly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate the law as laid down in Foreigners Tribunal (Order), 1964 and erroneously and illegally rejected the defence of the petitioner as narrated in the written statement and failed to appreciate the documents annexed to the written statement on the ground that the petitioner had not given evidence in support of her claim to be Indian citizen either under oath or on affidavit sworn before the Notary or other competent authority. It is further submitted that by bringing about the Notification dated 07.09.2015, the State Government had brought three amendments to the Foreigners Tribunal (Order), 1964 whereby some class of foreigners to which the petitioner belongs are exempted from detention and deportation. Hence, it is submitted that the opinion impugned herein is vitiated by erroneous rejection of the written statement including documents annexed thereto, as such, the impugned opinion is liable to be set aside and quashed and that the petitioner be declared as not a foreigner.

5. On the basis of submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the following two points of determination arise for decision in this case:-

a. Whether the writ Court can interfere with the impugned opinion dated 5.5.2017 rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal on the ground that in law there is no requirement for a proceedee in a reference proceeding to either lead oral evidence by examining himself/herself and other supporting witnesses and that the proceeding be disposed of only on the basis of represen