IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial decisions, requiring reasoned orders for binding effect in subsequent proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J)

1. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned C.G.C for the respondent No.1, Union of India. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as well as Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Musstt. Saleha Begum, impugning the order/opinion dated 30.03.2017, passed by learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Nalbari in Case No. F.T. (Nal) Case No. (N) 3/2009, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner, an inquiry was conducted regarding the citizenship of the petitioner, during which the petitioner was suspected to be a foreigner. On the basis of the inquiry report,the Superintendent of Police (Border) Nalbari made a reference to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1, Nalbari, for rendering the opinion regarding the citizenship status of the petitioner.

4. It is pertinent to mention herein that though the reference was made in the name of Musstt. Suleha Begum, wife of Sanowar Hussain, however, notice was issued to her by the learned Foreigners Tribunal in the name of Musstt. Saleha Begum.

5. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement on 21.12.2016.

6. In her written statement, the petitioner has stated that she is a citizen of India and her father’s name is Kasem Ali and she was born in the Village-Bhakuamari in the Barpeta District. She has also stated that she was married to one Sanowar Ali @ Sanur Ali, son of late Sarab Ali of Sariyahtoli Village.She has also stated that the name of her father Kasem Ali is included in the voter list of 1965.

7. She has also stated that earlier also one reference case was registered against her, i.e., F. T. (N) Case No. 4593/2006, wherein the learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence and after considering the documents produced by her declared her to be a citizen of India.

8. In support of her contentions, the petitioner examined herself as OPW-1. In her evidence on affidavit, she has reiterated the facts which she has stated in her written statement. She has exhibited a copy of Order/Opinion, dated 08.09.2014, passed in F. T. (N) Case No. 4593/2006 as Exhibit-1. She has also exhibited a copy of Voter List of 1965 of No. 47 Sarbhog Legislative Assembly Constituency in respect of her projected father, late Kasem Ali, as Exhibit-2. She has also exhibited a copy of, certified copy of the extract of Voter List of 2011 of Sariyahtoli Village No. 57, where her name has been shown as doubtful elector.

9. Mr. B. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Learned Tribunal was wrong in not considering the fact that the petitioner was earlier declared to be an Indian citizen by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari in its opinion/order dated 08.09.2014 passed in F. T. (N) Case No. 4593/2006.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has distinguished the identity of the present petitioner with the proceedee of F. T. (N) Case No. 4593/2006 only on the basis that in that case the proceedee was of 22 years of age and was shown to be wife of one Sanur Ali of village-Sariyahtoli and her country of origin was not disclosed in Form No. 1.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Learned Tribunal has erred in holding that in F. T. (N) Case No. 4593/2006 the proceedee was not the present petitioner. He has submitted that as the petitioner’s father's name and other details tally with that of the proceedee in F. T. (N) Case No. 4593/2006. It is submitted that merely because the name of the husband in the earlier proceeding does not tally with t