The Tribunal's proceedings were invalid due to lack of authorization, requiring annulment of the ex parte order.

1. Heard Ms. M. Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Kalita, learned Special Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Also heard, Ms. G Sarma, learned CGC for the respondent No. 2, Mr. A I Ali, learned Standing counsel, Election Commission of India, respondent No. 5 and Ms. A Verma, learned Standing counsel, NRC for the respondent No. 6.

2. On a reference being made alleging the petitioner to be a foreign national, the F.T. Case No. 445/2007 was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldoi against her.

3. Petitioner herein has filed this writ petition on 20.06.2018 challenging the ex parte order dated 24.04.2008, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldoi in said F.T. Case disposing off the reference ex parte against the petitioner and in favour of the State.

4. Following the said order of the Tribunal, dated 24.04.2008, the petitioner was taken into custody on 08.05.2018 and since then, she is detained in the detention camp at Tezpur Jail.

5. This Court, while issuing notice to the respondents on 22.06.2018, in the interim, ordered that the petitioner shall not be deported from India.

6. Petitioner stated that notice of the case was not served upon her and it is only when police took her in custody on 08.05.2018, she could come to know about the impugned ex parte order of the Tribunal dated 24.04.2008.

7. Petitioner also stated that as reflected in the certified copy of the impugned ex parte order dated 24.04.2008, annexed to the petition, she is not the wife of Sattar Ali, but of Sultan Ali.

8. Ms. Dev, learned counsel submits that the petitioner did not evade the process of law and unless an opportunity is granted to her to contest the proceeding, she will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

9. Perused the records of the Tribunal.

10. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the Tribunal issued notice in the case to Smti. Amena Khatun, wife of Sultan of Village - Khetachar under Dalgaon Police Station. From the report of the process server dated 25.05.2007, it is seen that he went to the Khetachar village and met the addressee in her house as mentioned in the notice, served her the notice, informed her about the case, asked her to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed, served her the second copy of the notice, by obtaining her signature (thumb impression) on the first copy of the notice and returned the same to the Tribunal and the notice of the case seems to have been served on the petitioner by obtaining the impression of right thumb in presence of witnesses.

11. From the record, it is also seen that report of the process server contains signature of two constables, including the process servers Manin Das and Hari Prasad Upadhaya and it did not contain signature of any independent and / or local witness identifying the addressee.

12. Order sheet of the case reflects that on 12.03.2008, the Tribunal observed that the summon did not return after service and as such, the Tribunal passed the order to re - issue summon to the process server, fixing 01.04.2008 for ex parte hearing.

13. On 01.04.2008, the Tribunal observed that summon did not return after service and fixed the matter on 24.04.2008 for ex parte hearing.

14. On 24.04.2008, one of the process server Hari Prasad Upadhaya, appeared before the Tribunal and stated that while he was posted at Kharupetia outpost, he, on 25.05.2007, went to the residence of the petitioner and served notice upon her in presence of the