JUDGMENT :

(A.M. Bujor Barua, J.)

1. Heard Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, being the Union of India. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3, being the authorities in the Home Department and Mr. T. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, being the authority in the Election Commission of India.

2. As the present proceeding also involves a question involving the proposition laid down by the three judges bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam & Ors. Vs. Moslem Mondal & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 and its implication in the manner in which the State of Assam in the Home Department is carrying out the proceedings against the suspected foreigners, Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate has also appeared on behalf of the State of Assam in the Home Department.

3. WP(C) No. 3745/2019 has been instituted by Musstt. Asmina Khatun, Md. Jakir Hussain and Musstt. Imrana Khatun being aggrieved by an opinion dated 21.12.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3, Morigaon in F.T.(C) No. 203/2015 declaring them to be foreigners. It is noted that Musstt. Asmina Khatun is the wife of Md. Intaz Ali, resident of village Kalikajari, P.S. Mikirbheta in the Morigaon district, whereas Md. Jakir Hussain and Musstt. Imrana Khatun are respectively the son and daughter of Md. Intaz Ali. WP(C) No. 8399/2022 has been instituted by Md. Intaz Ali son of late Jamiruddin, resident of village Kalikajari, P.S. Mikirbheta in the Morigaon district also being aggrieved by an opinion dated 21.12.2018 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3, Morigaon in F.T.(C) No. 203/2015. In the writ petitions, the petitioners raise a question of law with reference to the provisions in paragraph 97 of the judgment rendered by the three judges bench of this Court in Moslem Mondal (supra) to the effect that if an enquiry/investigation as provided in the said paragraph is not conducted, the resultant proceedings before the Foreigners’ Tribunal itself would be vitiated and the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside. A further question of law raised by the petitioners is that the enquiry and the reference had been made only against Md. Intaz Ali being the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 8399/2022 and no such enquiry was held against the three writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 3745/2019 and therefore by relying upon the proposition laid down by this Court in paragraph 9 of its judgment rendered in Sudhir Roy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2019 (1) GLT 353, the proceedings against the said writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 3745/2019 are vitiated and therefore the opinion rendered by the Tribunal in respect of such writ petitioners are also liable to be set aside.

4. Over and above the aforesaid two questions of law being raised by the writ petitioners, the petitioner Md. Intaz Ali in WP(C) No. 8399/2022 seeks to discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 by referring to the voters’ list of 1971 in respect of village Nagabandha, Mouza Lahorighat in the Nagaon district which contains the name of Md. Jamiruddin son of Khalil at Sl. No. 1063. The petitioner Md. Intaz Ali also refers to the voters’ list of 1985 of village Nagabandha, Mouza Lahorighat in the Nagaon district which contains the name of Md. Jamiruddin son of Khalil at Sl. No. 194, Musstt. Sabarjan wife of Jamiruddin at Sl. No. 195 and that of Md. Muktab Ali son of Jamiruddin at Sl. No. 196, by claiming that Musstt. Sabarjan is his mother and Md. Muktab Ali is his brother. The petitioner also places reliance upon a Jamabandi in respect of a plot of land of village Nagabandha wherein as per the order of the Circle Officer dated 27.11.2019, the land had been mutated by deleting the name of Jamiruddin son of Khalil and by including the names of Md. Muktab Hussain son of Jamiruddin, Musstt. Hasen Banu daughter of Jamiruddin and Md. Intaz Ali son of Jamiruddin. Accordingl