Procedural fairness requires strict adherence to established legal protocols, and the tribunal's failure to follow these mandates necessitates remand for reevaluation of the case.

ORDER :

(K.R. Surana, J.)

Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC for the respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters, representing respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no. 5; and Ms. N. Bedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.3.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 29.09.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.4th , Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. FT- 1153/2016 [arising out of IMDT Case No. 2830/01], by which the petitioner, namely, Pahar Ali @ Md. Lalchan Ali, was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3) The matter was listed for consideration of the prayer made by the petitioner for bail. In view of the inordinate delay in assailing the opinion dated 29.09.2022, and moreover, the effort which would be taken to examine the records so as to consider the prayer for bail, with the consent of the learned counsel for all sides, this writ petition was taken up for hearing.

4) The reference bearing I.M.D.T. Case No. 2830/01, against the petitioner was originally forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta under the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as the IM(D)T Act for brevity], expressing doubt about the nationality of the petitioner. The Supreme Court of India, vide decision rendered in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 665, declared the IM(D)T Act and rules thereunder as ultra vires and directed that the pending cases be transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal under the Foreigners Act, 1946 to be tried under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Accordingly, the said proceeding was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No.4th , Barpeta.

5) The petitioner, on receipt of the notice, entered appearance before the said learned Tribunal and submitted his written statement of defence. In the written statement, the petitioner had stated that his actual name is Pahar Ali, which is written in the voter list, land record, Gaonburah certificate, except in the voter list of 1989, where his name is written as Lalchan Miah but in case record, the name is written as Lalchan Ali . Hence, it was stated that Lalchan Miah @ Lalchan Ali @ Pahar Ali, son of Mofiz Uddin @ Mofiz Ali @ Mofiz Sheikh is one and same person. It was also stated that the actual and correct name of his father is Mofiz Sheikh, which is written in the voter list of 1966, but in other voter list, land record and case record, his father’s name is written as Mofiz Uddin Ahmed, Mofiz Ali and as such, Mofiz Sheikh @ Mofiz Ali @ Mofiz Uddin is one and same person. It was stated that he was born and brought up at village- Balikuri Non-K, Mouza- Jania, P.S. Kalgachia, District Barpeta, Assam and his father, who was a resident of said village, was a voter in the year 1966 and 1970 and he had shifted to Bordoloni, Mandia Pathar due to purchase of land. The petitioner has referred to his wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law, which is not relevant for this case. It was stated that two sons, namely, Usman Ali, Jaydul Islam @ Jahidul Islam and one daughter, Batasi Nessa @ Amina Khatun were born out of their wedlock.

6) It may be stated that though reference was made only against the petitioner, the proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner and his wife. However, by an order dated 29.08.