Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Das, learned CGC; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for ECI; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for NRC and Mr. H. K. Hazarika, learned Jr. Govt. Advocate, Assam.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Kurban Ali has assailed the opinion dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Members, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in FT Case No.10/2017, arising out of Reference Case bearing Chandmari P.S. Case No. 564/2016, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner by holding that the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove that he acquired citizenship of India by birth through genuine Indian parents.

3. The petitioner, on receipt of notice of the proceedings, appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement on 07.04.2017, stating that he is the son of Md. Kalachan Ali. He has submitted voters list for the year 1966, wherein the names of grandfather and grandmother appear as Abdul Hamid and Kadbhanu Nesa under village Sampupara. He has also submitted the voters list of 1993, where the name of his father appears as Kalachan Ali at village Bhatkhuwa Diya. He has also submitted the NRC Legacy Data where his grandfather’s name is recorded as Abdul Hamid. The petitioner has also submitted one Elector Photo Identity Card (for short, ‘EPIC’) of his projected father and his own EPIC. He has projected by swearing an affidavit filed with the written statement that his name is wrongly recorded as Kurpan Ali instead of Kurban Ali and that his fathers’ name is recorded as Kaluchan Ali instead of Kalachan Ali and that his grandfathers’ name is recorded as Hamed Ali and Abdul Hamed. Thereafter, on 05.05.2017, the petitioner had submitted his evidence-on-affidavit and by reiterating the statements made in the written statements, executed the hereinbefore the referred documents as Ext. ‘A’ to Ext. ‘G’, wherein, Ext. ‘F’ and Ext. ‘G’ are the self-declaratory affidavit sworn by the petitioner.

4. In support of his defence, the petitioner has also examined his projected father, Kalachan Ali, as DW-2, who has exhibited his own EPIC as Ext. ‘H’ by stating that he is living in village Bhatkhuwa Diya and that he is the father of the petitioner, whose correct name is Kurban Ali, which is wrongly written in the EPIC of his son as Kurpan Ali, further stating that both Kurban Ali and Kurpan Ali are the same person.

5. The petitioner has also examined one Owaj Uddin, a resident of village Kathalguri, as DW-3. The said witness is aged about 72 years and claims to know the projected grandfather of the petitioner, whose name appears in the voters list of 1966, further stating that ‘Abdul Hamid’ had a nick name of ‘Hamid Ali’. All the 3 (three) DW’s were cross-examined and discharged.

6. The learned Tribunal had found all the exhibited documents to be not acceptable for the purpose of proving that the petitioner has been able to establish his link between him and his father and his grandfather and accordingly, it was held that the petitioner has failed to discharge his burden of proving that he has acquired citizenship of India by birth through genuine Indian parents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the documents appended to the writ petition has submitted that the evidence of the petitioner as DW-1 was discarded owing to discrepancies in his name, his father’s name and his grandfather’s name. It is submitted that apart from the documents which were exhibited before the learned Tribunal, at the time of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has provided further documents to show that the documents with the petitioner to link him to his projected parents and grandparents. Accordingly, it is submitted that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to prove the documents