ORDER

11.03.2025 (K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.

S. P. Choudhury, learned CGC, Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT and NRC, and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the impugned opinion dated 28.02.2019, passed by th the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 5 , Morigaon, Assam in No. M.F.T(J).2019/1409, in Case No. F.T. 291/2016 (New Number) in F.T. 888/2012 (Old Number) in F.T. Case No. 431/2010 dt. 29/11/2010, thereby declaring them as well as one Md. Abdul Motin, son of Late Nasaruddin as a foreigner who entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971.

3. The said opinion is assailed on the ground that as per the records of the learned Tribunal, the Border Police under the Superintendent of Police, (Border), Morigaon did not conduct any enquiry against the petitioners and that the enquiry was only directed against Md. Abdul Motin. In support of his contention,the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the decision of this Court in the Case of Sudhir Roy & Ors vs Union of India & Ors 2019 (2) GLT

61.

4. On perusal of the records of the learned Tribunal, the Court did not did not find any enquiry being directed against the present petitioners and the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon vide Memo under F.T.C. No. 431/10 dated 29.11.2010, by which the enquiry was initiated and only directed against Md. Abdul Motin. The interrogation report under Form- I, Form-II and Form-III are also in respect of Md. Abdul Motin. However, in column 13 of the interrogation report under Form-I, it contains the name of the petitioners as other family members of Md. Abdul Motin. However, in the report of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon dated 29.11.2010, the said authority has mentioned that the person i.e. Md. Abdul Motin and his family members had entered into India after 25.03.1971. It may be mentioned that the Border Police had only taken the finger print, photographs and the statement of only Md. Abdul Motin and for no one else including the petitioners.

5. The Tribunal records were sent over to the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters to verify from the records as to whether any formal reference was made against the petitioners, as it is seen that the records also do not contain a formal reference by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, to the concerned Foreigner's Tribunal. This is the second aspect on which the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters was requested to peruse the records. Upon perusal of the records, the response by the learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters was in the negative.

6. Therefore, the Court is inclined to hold that in course of the enquiry ordered by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, the only reference to the Investigating Officer was to enquire if the suspect, Md. Abdul Motin, aged 52 years, son of Late Nasaruddin of Village- Saruchalla, P.S.- Moirabari in the district of Morigaon, is suspected to be a foreign national who has entered into India between 01.06.1966 to 25.03.1971 or after 25.03.1971. The enquiry is not found to be made against the present petitioners. Therefore, it is held that there was no enquiry by the Border Police of District- Morigaon against the present petitioners.

7. In so far as a valid reference is concerned, on examination of the records, it is seen that page 7 of the records, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, has directed the Sub-Inspector (Border) of Moirabari Police Station to cause an enquiry. The Form-I of the interrogation report contains the name of Md. Abdul Motin as the suspected foreign national, and the said report is signed by the Sub-Inspector of P