Point of Law : Tribunal would be required to reassess evidences in terms of the observations made above and give a fresh opinion as regards citizenship status of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5; Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for respondent No. 2; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for respondent No. 6 and Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC for respondent No. 7. Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 8.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No. 7th at Lanka, Nagaon in FT/L/Case No. 214/2015 [Arising out of SPs. Case No. 935/2011] by which the petitioner was declared as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent opinion dated 08.02.2017 passed by the aforesaid Tribunal by which the learned Tribunal declined to interfere with the opinion dated 21.09.2016 and accordingly, dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner.

3. Upon a reference being made against the petitioner, the learned Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner after receipt of the notice appeared before the Tribunal in person and filed his written statement supported by certain documents claiming that he is an Indian citizen by birth and not a foreigner.

4. Learned Tribunal considered the documents filed by the petitioner in the following manner:

(i) Ext.1 is the certified copy of the voters list of 1966 in which the name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Promud Chandra Das, a resident of village Padampukhuri, P.S. Murajhar Bolck No. 116 under 93 No. Hojai Constituency is mentioned. However, the learned Tribunal observed that the name of the petitioner’s mother is not shown in the said voters list of 1966 and as such, it cannot be taken as a conclusive proof.

(ii) Coming to voters list of 1971, NRC voters details, learned Tribunal held that it does not have any evidentiary value as per law.

(iii) Exts.3 and 4 were certified copies of the voters list of 1997 and 2010 in which the name of the petitioner’s parents, family particulars and the petitioner’s own name have been mentioned as the residents of same village and locality.

However, the learned Tribunal observed that the petitioner has failed to explain as to why neither the petitioner’s parents’ names nor his own name are shown in any of the voters lists and official documents prepared prior to 1997 and there is a long gap of 26 years. Further, the learned Tribunal observed that these documents are recent documents and crossed the cut-off date. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned Tribunal rejected the said documents, Exts.3 and 4.

(iv) Coming to Exts.7 and 8 which are the school certificate and the certificate of birth of the petitioner showing his date of birth respectively, the learned Tribunal held that in the said exhibits there are over-writing and as such, it was held that these documents are tampered and cannot be accepted as valid documentary evidences and the learned Tribunal held that a person who comes to the court must come with clean hands and it appears that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as claimed.

(v) Coming to registered Sale Deed, which was exhibited as Ext.9, in the name of the petitioner dated 26.06.1993, learned Tribunal held that this is a very recent document which is not enough to establish his claim. Moreover, the document is not proved as per the provision of law.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he is a genuine Indian citizen and accordingly, declared him to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documen