Point of Law: Learned Tribunal is required to re-examine the issue by taking into consideration explanation offered by petitioner about discrepancy and pass a fresh opinion as regards citizenship status of petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

N.Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. Z Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, F.T. appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 5; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.4.

2. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.5th, Morigaon, Assam, in Case No. F.T. (C) 179/2016 (New Number) F.T.(C) 2051/2012 (Old Number), IM(D)T Case No.441/2000 dt.29.12.2000] by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner who had illegally entered into Assam from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971.

3. On receipt of a reference of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon against the petitioner (O.P. No.1), his wife (O.P. No.2) and their three children, notice was issued to the petitioner and his family. After receiving notice, the petitioner along with his wife duly appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed their written statements.

4. On the basis of the exhibited documents, the learned Tribunal declared the petitioner as a foreigner but declared the petitioner’s wife (O.P. No.2) and her 3 (three) children as Indians vide its order dated 22.09.2017 and as such, we may not make any reference to them except for the petitioner.

5. In support of his contention, the petitioner submitted as many as 10 documents which were exhibited as Exts.A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, M and N respectively and also adduced evidence by examining himself and one Mofidul Islam as D.W.3, his neighbour, to corroborate the evidence of the petitioner as well as his wife.

6. As regards the aforesaid exhibits, the same had also been mentioned in the opinion dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, which are as follows:

(i) Exhibit (A) is a certified voter list of 1975 of Vill-Bhajakaiti Pathar containing the names of Abdul Hekim, Jainal Uddin and Sarban Nessa, which is produced as the voter list of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2

(ii) Exhibit-(B) is a certified voter list of 1997 of Vill-Barchapari containing the names of Jainal Abdin, Sarbanu and Majibur which is produced as the voter list of O.P. No.1 and O.P No.2.

(iii) Exhibit-(C) is a certified voter list of 2005 of Vill- Barchapari containing the names of O.P. No.1, O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3.

(iv) Exhibit-(D) is a certified voter list of 2016 of Vill-Barchapari containing the names of O.P. No.1, O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3.

(v) Exhibit-(E) is a computer copy of Jamabandhi which is produced as the Jamabandhi of O.P. No.2 in Sl. No.22 but, the name is found struck off. So, this documents is not accepted as the Jamabandhi of O.P. No.1.

(vi) Exhibit-(F) is a certificate issued by the Gaon Burah of Vill-Barchapari certifying the O.P. as the resident of the said village. But, the contents of the document are not proved by the Gaon Burah. So, it is not accepted.

(vii) Exhibit-(G) is a certified voter list of 1965 of Vill- Bhajakhaiti Pather containing the name of Sadar Uddin whom the O.P. has named as his father.

(viii) Exhibit-(H) is a certified voter list of 1970 containing the name of Sadar Uddin whom the O.P. has named as his father.

(ix) Exhibit-(M) is a certified voter list of 1989 of Vill-Barchapari containing the names of A. Hekim, Khudeja, Jainal Abdin and Sarban Nessa which is produced as the voter list of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2.

(x) Exhibit-(N) is a certified voter list of 2016 of Vill-Barchapari containing the names of Jainal Abdin, Sarbanu, Majibukar Rahman, Rumena Khatun, Matibur Rahman and Rafiqul Islam which is produced as the voter list of O.P.’s family.”

7. From the above, it is seen that one document i.e. Exhibit-E, a computer copy of Jamabandi which, however, was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that name of the O.P. No.1 (the petitioner herein) which was recorded in the Serial No.22 thereof wa