Point of Law: They were Indian citizens by virtue of registration and accordingly, it was held that the aforesaid Saibalik Hajong, whom the petitioner claims to be his mother is an Indian citizen by virtue of registration. As a consequence, the petitioner can be considered to be an Indian.

JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India for the respondent No. 1; Ms. A. Verma, learned special counsel, FT, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No. 5 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No. 4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the learned Tribunal dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Goalpara, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 4601/G/2011 by which the petitioner was declared an illegal migrant of post 1971 stream from Bangladesh.

3. We have perused the records received from the Tribunal.

4. We have noted that the said order was passed as the petitioner remained absent. Perusal of the order dated 05.02.2013 shows that the petitioner after appearing on 03.07.2012 filed the written statement on 27.07.2012 along with certain xerox copies of voters' lists of 1979, 1985, 1993 and 1997, as well as a copy of the Relief Eligibility Certificate (REC). As observed by the learned Tribunal in the said written statement, the petitioner claimed that he had come to India in the year 1964. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal and in the meantime, the amendment had been effected in the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which requires for completion of the proceeding before the Tribunal within 60 days. Learned Tribunal observed that the plea taken by the petitioner of not being able to appear on the ground of illness having been suffering from malaria was not credible and accordingly, proceeded to dispose of the matter in absence of the petitioner.

5. While the conclusion of the proceeding within 60 days cannot be said to be technically incorrect in view of the specific provision of the Act, however, the fact remains that there could be various factors and situations because of which the proceeding cannot be completed within 60 days.

6. Further, in the present case, what we have noted is that the petitioner had taken a specific plea that the petitioner's father had entered India on 24th Magh, 1370 as per the document i.e. the Relief Eligibility Certificate, in which the authorities had mentioned the date of arrival in India as 24th Magh, 1370. Magh is a lunar month in India and the aforesaid date roughly corresponds to 6th February, 1964 of the English calendar. Thus, it indicates that the petitioner's father had entered India before 25.03.1971.

7. There is another document filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which is an order issued by the office of the Officer on Special Duty, Relief and Rehabilitation Refugee Camp, Matia, on 27.06.1964, where the name of the petitioner's father Ratindra Hajong is shown along with other family members, which would show that the petitioner's father and other relatives had entered India before 27.06.1964. However, the learned Tribunal wrongly appreciated the documents on record and made the observation that in the first page of Relief Eligibility Certificate at S. No. 5 the date of arrival in India has been shown to be 24th Magh, 1370 by misreading it as 24th Magh, 1970 and observed that the petitioner had given different dates of entry in India, one in 1970 and another in 1964. We have closely observed the certificate on record in which the date of arrival has been recorded as 24th Magh, 1370 and not 1970. 24th Magh, 1370 is the recording in terms of Indian calendar and not as per English calendar which roughly corresponds to February, 1964. Since the other document dated 27.06.1964 clearly mentions the names of Ratindra Hajong along with other family members, it is quite evident that the learned Tribunal has misread the documents.

8. In addition to that Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that p