Gauhati High Court
Must. Sobita Begum vs The Union Of India And 9 Ors on 21 November, 2025
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010173062016
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4997/2016
MUST. SOBITA BEGUM
D/O. LT. ABDUL SUKKUR @ SUKUR ALI, R/O. DOBOKA TOWN WARD NO.9,
MOUZA JOMUNAMUKH, P.O. DOBOKA, P.S. DOBOKA, DIST. NAGAON,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 9 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. MINSTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW
DELHI-1.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY.-06.
3:THE COMMISSIONER and SECY.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.-06.
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GHY.-07.
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/15
PIN-782001.
6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435.
7:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE B
NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782001.
8:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE B
HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435.
9:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
KOBOKA POLICE STATION
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN-782435.
10:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR
NRC
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. I H KHAN, MR. A WAHAB,MR. M U MONDAL,MR. S
CHOUDHURY,MS. N NASRIN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM (R-2 to R9), ASSTT. S.G.I.(R-1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Date : 21-11-2025
Page No.# 3/15
Date on which judgment is reserved : 23.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment :
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
U.K. Goswami, learned CGC appearing for respondent no.1; Mr. H.K. Hazarika,
learned Government Advocate for respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6; Mr. J. Payeng,
learned standing counsel for FT, Border matters and NRC, respondent nos. 3, 4
and 7 to 10.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, namely, Must. Sobita Begum, has challenged the opinion
dated 20.06.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon
No.10th, Doboka, in F.T. (D) Case No. 49/2015, arising out of S.P.'s F.T. Case No.
1065/2008, by which she was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971
stream under section 2(1)(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 who has illegally
entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 without any valid document.
3) The petitioner has projected in her written statement that her
name is entered in the voter list of 2014 of 90 No. Jamunamukh LAC as Sobi
Begum. The name of her grandfather is entered in the voter list of 1966 of 92
Page No.# 4/15
No. Jamunamukh LAC as Intaz Ali Kabiraj. The name of her father is entered in
the voter list of 1966 and 1970 of 92 No. Jamunamukh LAC as Sukur, son of
Intaz. She had enclosed a copy of the voter list of 1966, 1970, 2014 and birth
certificate along with her written statement.
4) In support of her defence, the petitioner had examined herself
as DW-1, wherein she had reiterated her statements made in the written
statement and she had also claimed that the case has been filed against her
without any investigation. Though no documents were exhibited by the
petitioner in her examination-in-chief, but during her cross-examination, she had
exhibited the following documents, viz., certified copy of voter list of 1966
(Ext.1); certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.2); Gaonburah's certificate
(Ext.3); certified copy of voter list of 2014 (Ext.4); birth certificate (Ext.5); NRC
Legacy Data, 1971 (Ext.6); NRC legacy data, 1971 (Ext.7).
5) In her cross-examination on 11.01.2016, the petitioner had
stated that her age was 24 years, and she was residing in Ward No. 9 of
Doboka Town. Her mother's name is Musstt. Mina Begum; her grandfather's
name is Late Intaz Ali Kabiraj; her grandmother's name is Sakirun Begum and
she did not know when she died and how old she was. She had stated that her
grandfather was a resident of village- Pub Jugijan and had no land in the village.
Her father resided at Doboka Puran Bazar and she did not know when her
father came to Doboka Puran Bazar. Her father had two brothers, her father was
eldest and her uncle's name is Mokbul Ali and she does not know about him.
She does not know if her father died in the year 2003 at the age of 60 years. He
mother is aged about 50 years. She has an elder brother and two sisters. Her
elder sister Babita Khatun married 15 years ago and Kobita Khatun married 12
years ago and they are aged about 30 years and 28 years and her elder brother
Page No.# 5/15
is aged 26 years. She had stated that in the voter list of 1966, the name of her
grandfather and name of grandmother appear as Sukurun not as Shakirun
Begum. In respect of voter list of 1970 (Ext.2), she had stated that the name of
her grandfather is at serial no. 19 and her grandmother's name appeared at
serial no. 21 and she does not know whose name appeared in serial no. 20. Her
grandmother's name appears as Sukur and not Sukurun or Shakirun Begum and
there her grandfather's age is 72 and grandmother's age is 25. Ext.3, residential
certificate was issued by Gaonburah of Village- Niz Doboka. The name of her
mother and other family members appear in Ext.4, the voter list of 2014. Ext.5
is her birth certificate. In Ext.6, NRC voter detail of 1971, age of her grandfather
is 72 years and in Ext.7, NRC voter detail of 1971, age of her grandmother is 25
years. She had stated that no enquiry was conducted by police and therefore,
she was not a foreigner. No other witness was examined by her.
6) On appreciating the evidence of the petitioner, Ext.1 was
discarded due to erroneous description of the name of petitioner's grandmother
as Sukurun, instead of Shakirun Begum. Moreover, as the petitioner had stated
in her cross-examination that her father had died in 2003 at the age of 60
years, the Tribunal had expressed that her father was born in the year 1943 and
therefore, why his name did not appear in the voter list of 1966 when he would
have been 23 years. The learned Tribunal had found that in Ext.1, the age of
grandfather is 48 years, the age of her grandmother is 48 years and it was
questioned why the voter list (Ext.1) name at serial no. 43 was missing. The
learned Tribunal, compared the age of the petitioner's grandparents in Ext.1 and
had also taken note of the fact that in the voter list of 1970 (Ext.2), while the
age of her grandfather was 72 years, the age of her grandmother Sukurun was
25 years, which was not explained or clarified. Accordingly, it was held that
Page No.# 6/15
serious doubt was cast on truthfulness of Ext.1 and Ext.2, rendering it to be
untrustworthy and unreliable.
7) The learned Tribunal had discarded Ext.3 as the author had not
stated that the petitioner was born in said village and/or for how long she was
residing there. Ext.4 was disbelieved because the petitioner did not mention in
her evidence why her name and her parents' name did not appear in any voter
list for 44 years between 1970 and 2014 and moreover, the voter list of 2014
was of one year prior to the case, was held to be not enough to establish
linkage with documents prior to cut-off date of 25.03.1971. The birth certificate
(Ext.5) with date of birth was made on 24.07.2009, showing date of birth of the
petitioner on 12.08.1991, was discarded as the document was made after
inquiry in the reference case was made in the year 2009 to fill-up the lacuna.
Ext.6 and Ext.7, the NRC voter detail was discarded as it was not a primary or a
secondary evidence.
8) It was further held that Ext.3 and Ext.5 were not affirmed in
accordance with law and reference was made to the decision of the Supreme
Court of India in the case of Bhanwaroo Khan v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 4
SCC 346, wherein it has been held that long stay in Country and enrolment in
voters lists do not confer citizenship. Accordingly, the opinion was rendered in
the affirmative in support of the reference.
9) The learned counsel for the petitioner had strongly submitted
that the public documents were discarded, which was illegal and contrary to the
provisions of Sections 74 and 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It was submitted
that apart from documents which were filed with her evidence, the petitioner, by
filing additional affidavits on 22.05.2019, 07.11.2019 and 30.08.2023, had
brought additional documents on record for consideration of the Court and
Page No.# 7/15
accordingly, it was prayed that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration
by giving further opportunity to tender additional evidence. In support of his
submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases,
viz., Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, 2019 5 Supreme 666, Rofiqul Hoque v. The
Union of India & Ors. (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 870, In Re: Section 6A of the
Citizenship Act, 1955, Supreme (SC) 2024 (0) 942 , Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur
Rahim v. The State of Assam & Ors., 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 575 .
10) Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the FT and Border
matters has opposed the challenge and has submitted in support of the opinion
impugned in this writ petition.
11) Perused the Tribunal's records and considered the submissions
and cases cited at the Bar.
12) On examining the Tribunal's records, it is seen that in the written
statement, the petitioner has not disclosed the names of her mother and
grandmother, names of her siblings and siblings of her father or she is married
or not and whether she had children. The petitioner has even not pleaded
whether her grandparents and parents were alive or not. Moreover, she has not
even stated about the date of her birth. The petitioner, as DW-1 was cross-
examined on 11.01.2016, when she had disclosed about the name of her uncle
and own siblings. Moreover, it is seen that the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the
petitioner has not been sworn on oath, but is only supported by verification.
Though the sign and seal of Notary Public are affixed on both the pages of the
evidence-on-affidavit, but it does not contain any endorsement that it was
sworn before him by the deponent. Thus, it is seen that though the evidence-
on-affidavit is no affidavit at all, but yet the learned Tribunal had entertained it.
In her cross-examination on 11.01.2016, the petitioner, as DW-1 had stated that
Page No.# 8/15
her two sisters and brother are aged about 30 years, 28 years and 26 years
respectively. If that be so, then they were born sometime in the year 1986,
1988 and 1990 respectively, but their names do not appear in any voter list with
her parents after they had become entitled to vote.
13) In the case of Rashminara Begum v. Union of India, 2017 (4)
GLT 346 and Saru Sheikh v. Union of India, (2017) 4 GLR 295 , which deals with
the decision of Foreigners Tribunals, the Division Bench of this Court had held to
the effect that material facts pleaded would have to be proved by adducing
cogent and admissible evidence. Moreover, in the case of Ayesha Khatun v.
Union of India, (2017) 3 GLR 820, and Jehirul Islam v. Union of India, (2017) 5
GLR 670, which also deals with the decision of Foreigners Tribunals, the Division
Bench of this Court had held to the effect that failure to disclose material facts
would lead to adverse presumption.
14) Though the petitioner had exhibited 8 (eight) documents, but
the contents of those documents were not proved, because in her written
statement and her evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has not disclosed about
the persons whose names appear therein, except for stating that the voter list
of 1966 contains the name of her grandfather and voter list of 1966 and 1970
contains the name of her father and that her name appeared in the voter list of
2014.
15) The learned Tribunal had held the Ext.1 and Ext.2 to be
untrustworthy. In this regard, the petitioner has not explained why the certified
copy of voter list of 1966 (Ext.1) selectively contains the names of persons
appearing at serial no. 42 and 44 only and why the certified copy of voter list of
1970 (Ext.2) selectively contains the names of persons appearing at serial no.
19 and 21 only. This Court, by an order dated 23.06.2023, took notice of certain
Page No.# 9/15
discrepancies in respect of Ext.1 and Ext.2, and passed an order, directing the
Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon to make and enquiry and to submit a
report. The said order is quoted below:-
"The Superintendant of Police (B) Nagaon to make a thorough enquiry and submit a report
before the Court as to when Sukurun wife of Intaz whose name appears in the 1966 voters of
village Pub Jugijan died in a situation where it is claimed that she had died between 1966
and 1970. As a result, the 1970 voters list contains the name of Sukur, who is claimed to be
the son of Intaz.
The verification be made specifically whether Sukurun of the 1966 voters list and Sukur of
the 1970 voters list are mother and son or in fact they are the same person i.e. Sukurun
herself.
The Superintendent of Police (B) Nagaon to also verify whether the name of Sukur did
appear in any voters list prior to 1970 along with Sukurun.
A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. A Verma, learned counsel for the Home
Department, Government of Assam for doing the needful.
List on 02.08.2023.
The report be submitted by the next returnable date."
16) The Enquiry and Report dated 01.08.2023, that has been
submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, is accompanied
with the Enquiry Report dated 28.07.2023, by the S.I.(Border), I/c., Border
Branch, Doboka. The said report has been accepted by the Court by order dated
02.08.2023. The contents of the Enquiry Report dated 28.07.2023 and Report of
the Superintendent of Police (Border), Hojai, are reproduced herein below:-
(I) "To
The Superintendent of Police (B)
Sankardev Nagar, Hojai
Dated: Sankardev Nagar on 28 July 2023
Page No.# 10/15
Sub: Submission of Inquiry report.
Ref: Guwahati High Court order WP(C)/4997/2016.
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, I have enquired into the matter and
submit the inquiry report in respect of Musstt Sobita Begum D/o Lt Abdul Sukkur @
Sukur All Vill Doboka Town Ward No 09 Mouza Jamunarmukh PO & PS Doboka as to
whether Sukurun of the 1966 voter list and Sukur of the 1970 voter list are mother
and son or in fact they are the same person i.e. Sukurun herself.
I have visited the village Doboka Town Ward No 09 under Doboka PS where
Musstt Sobita Begum D/o Lt Abdul Sukkur @ Sukur Ali presently residing on 27 July
2023 and communicated with her and recorded her statement in a separate sheet and
collected following documents on being produced by Musstt Sobita Begum which are
enclosed herewith Annexure 'A':-
(a) Govt, Gaonburah Certificate (Xerox copy).
(b) Certified voter list 2014, 1977, 1975, 1970, 1966(Xerox copy)
(c) Death Certificate issued by Secretary of Doboka Town Ward No 08 and Govt,
Gaonburah Certificate (Xerox copy)
As per the above cited documents Musstt Sobita Begum claimed that name of
Sukurun mentioned in the voter list 1966 as Grand mother and also claimed Sukur
mentioned in the voter list 1970 as her father. She told that her Grand parents and
her father were previously residing at Pub Jugijan Mouza Jugijan PS Hojai.
During inquiry I have also visited the village Pub Jugijan Mouza Jugijan PS Hojai
and inquired about her Grand parents and her father locally. I have. consulted with
the local villagers about Sukurun and Sukur's and their relationship but no one of the
village knows about such person namely Lt Intaj Ali Kabiraj@ Intaj Ali, Sukurun W/o Lt
Intaj Ali Kabiraj@ Intaj Ali and his son Sukur residing in the village. However the
villager informed that one person namely Intaj Ali Fakir@ Intaj Ali Kabiraj resided in
the village but name of his wife's not known to them and as per their knowledge Intaj
Ali Kabiraj@ Intaj Ali has only one son namely Abdul Rahim and he is permanently in
the village Pub Jugijan Mouza Jugijan PS Hojai.
Thereafter I communicated with Abdul Rahim S/o Lt Intaj Ali Kabiraj@ Intaj Ali@
Intaj Ali Fakir recorded his statement in a separate sheet and collected following on
being produced by Abdul Rahim Annexure 'B':-
a) Xerox copy of Voter ID Card.
b) Voter list 1966 &1970
c) Xerox copy of 07 Khiraj Patta
On received of documents submitted by Abdul Rahim S/o Lt Intaj Ali Kabiraj @Intaj
Ali@ Intaj Ali Fakir Vill Pub Jugijan Mouza Jugijan PS Hojai, it is found that both of
documents provided by the O.P. i.e. Musstt Sobita Begum and On received of
Page No.# 11/15
documents submitted by Abdul Rahim S/o Lt Intaj All Abdul Rahim S/o Lt Intaj Ali
Kabiraj@ Intaj Ali@ Intaj All Fakir Vill Pub Jugijan Mouza Jugijan PS Hojal are same,
but Abdul Rahim claimed that both Mokbul is his mother and Sukur of his step mother
because his father had two wives.
I have collected certified copy of voter list of 1966 and 1970 produced by the O.P.
namely Musstt Sobita Begum D/o Lt Abdul Sukkur @ Sukur Ali it is found I have
collected Certified copy of voter list of 1966 & 1970 produced by the that both
documents were found manipulated in the name of Sukurun and her age, gender &
relationship and it is also clearly mentioned in the voter list that Sukur and Mokbul
were the wives of Intaj.
Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances the merit of the evidence on
records It has come to notice that the O.P. Namely Mussstt Sobita Begum and her
family members has no any connection with Sukurun and inta and also noticed that
they had manipulated voter list of the year 1966 & 1970 hence sukurun and Sukur
were the same person.
Submitted for favor of kind perusal."
(II) "GOVT. OF ASSAM
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HOJAI, ASSAM
Phone No. 03674284100
E-Mail ID- [email protected]
Letter No. HJI/В/HC/2023/213 Hojai the 1st Aug, 2023.
To,
Sri Gunjan Sarma
Special Standing Counsel
F.T and Border Matters
Gauhati High Court, Guwahati
Sub: Enquiry and Report.
Ref:- Memo No. Addl. DGP (B)/ Law Cell/Misc- Vol.IV/ WP(C)/ 4997/
2016/2023/577/977 dated 27/07/2023.
Sir,
In inviting reference to the subject cited above, I am submitting inquiry report in
connection with WP(C) No. 4997/2016 in the matter of Sobita Begum, D/O Lt. Abdul
Sukkur @ Sukur Ali -Vs- The Union of India & ors.
Page No.# 12/15
During inquiry the following facts have come to light:-
1. Sukur is the name of wife of Intaj Ali Kabiraj and her name appears in the 1966
& 1970 voter list aged 21 & 25 years respectively. Sukur did not die between 1966
& 1970 as proof of his casting vote in 1975 & 1977 is available. (enclosed voter list
of 1966 & 1970 and voting record with respect to same of voter list 1975 & 1977).
2. The 1970 voter list does not contain any mention of any son of Sukur, rather
the mentions of person named Sukur in 1966 voter list & 1970 voter list refer to the
same person i.e. Sukur wife of Intaj Ali Kabiraj.
3. Name of Sukur appeared in 1966 voter list as wife of Intaj Ali Kabiraj.
It can be summarized as per records that there is only one person called Sukur, wife of
Intaj Ali Kabiraj whose name find mention in voter list of 1966 & 1970. No official
records as to the existence of son of Intaj Ali Kabiraj called Sukur could be found.
Submitted for favor of kind perusal.
Enclo:
1. Enquiry report submitted by SI(B) Isfakul Haque.
2. Written statement of Sobita Begum.
3. Govt. Gaonburha certificate.
4. Voter list of 2014.
5. Voter list of 1975 & 1977.
6. Voter list of 1970 & 1966.
Yours sincerely,
Superintendent of Police, (B)
Hojai:: Assam.
Dated: 01/08/2023."
17) By her affidavit filed on 30.08.2023, the petitioner has referred
to certificate of Gaonburah and Koboristan to project that her father had died on
02.10.2023. However, before the Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner has not
produced any voter list showing the presence of her projected father in Assam.
18) Be that as it may, in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit filed on
Page No.# 13/15
30.08.2023, the petitioner has relied on (a) the Enquiry Report dated
28.07.2023 (Annexure-I) submitted by the Sub-Inspector (Border), In-Charge,
Border Branch, Doboka, and (b) Report dated 01.08.2023, by the
Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon (Annexure-J). It may be stated that
those two documents i.e. Annexure-I and Annexure-J appended to the
additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 30.08.2023, are verified by the
petitioner as follows - "11. ... and those made in paragraphs 2 to 9 being
matters of record derived there from which I believe to be true to my
information ...". Therefore, by way of the said additional affidavit, the petitioner
has categorically admitted the correctness of the Enquiry Report dated
01.08.2023 (Annexure-I), extracted herein above and the Report dated
01.08.2023, by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon (Annexure-J).
19) Thus, on admitting the contents of the said two documents, the
finding to the effect that the petitioner, Sobita Begum and her family members
have no connection with Sukurun and Intaj and that the petitioner had
manipulated the voter list of the year 1966 and 1970 and Sukurun and Sukur
were the same person.
20) Therefore, the present writ petition to assail the impugned
opinion dated 20.06.2016, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 10 th,
Doboka, Nagaon is held to be based on false projection, which has been
exposed by the two reports dated 28.07.2023 and 01.08.2023, referred
hereinbefore, the contents of which has been admitted by the petitioner in her
additional affidavit.
21) Therefore, in light of discussions above, this Court does not find
that the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by any
Page No.# 14/15
jurisdictional error or that there was any failure in giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, as the Court is exercising supervisory
jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting
the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal with the view of the Court. This is
not a case where the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidence
or that its finding is de hors the evidence on record.
22) Therefore, under the unique facts of this case, the cases of
Abdul Kuddus (supra), In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (supra),
and Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim (supra) , cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner would have no application in this case. Therefore, no purpose would
be served to burden this order with discussion on the same.
23) Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is devoid of any merit
and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
24) The Registry shall return back the records along with a copy of
this order, to enable the said learned Tribunal to make it a part of the records of
the learned Tribunal for future reference.
25) It may be mentioned that in the order dated 07.11.2019, this
Court had recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a
statement that the name of the petitioner had been entered in the NRC bearing
ARN No. 101830502039079001573 of NSK: Doboka 9 Village/Ward Name:
Doboka (TC), Ward No. 0009 (567) of District Hojai and this Court had directed
the learned Standing Counsel for the State Coordinator, NRC to obtain necessary
instructions as to how the name of Sobita Begum could have entered in the
Final NRC despite having been declared as a foreigner of post 1971 stream vide
opinion dated 20.06.2016, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 10 th,
Page No.# 15/15
Doboka, Nagaon. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Court, the respondent
no.10 had filed an affidavit on 21.12.2023, inter alia, stating that the "declared
foreigner (DF)" status was shared by the Additional Director General of Police
(Border), Assam with the NRC authority, Hojai, and accordingly, the name of the
petitioner was excluded from the compete Draft NRC published on 30.07.2018,
being a 'DF' (declared foreigner).
26) Before parting with the records, it may be mentioned that for
making a false statement before the Court, this Court by order dated
25.08.2023, had directed the petitioner to show cause why contempt
proceeding or any other proceeding shall not be initiated against her. The order,
having been passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the petitioner is deemed to be aware of the said order.
27) Accordingly, the Registry is directed to register a separate
Contempt Petition (Suo Motu), to deal with the said issue separately. The copy
of orders dated 23.06.2023, 02.08.2023 and 25.08.2023, passed by this Court;
photocopy of the Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner on 30.08.2023 in
connection with this writ petition; and a copy of this order shall be kept in the
said file.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
