Gauhati High Court
Md Harjat Ali @ Hazrat Ali @ Md Hajarat Ali vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors on 9 September, 2025
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010004392023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/161/2023
MD HARJAT ALI @ HAZRAT ALI @ MD HAJARAT ALI
SON OF - JAMIRUDIN @ JAMIRATDDIN @ JAMIRATDIN @ MD.
JAMARATDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SALMORA TUP,
P.S.- GOLAGHAT,
IN THE DISTRICT OF GOLAGHAT, ASSAM,
PIN- 785702.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI.
PIN- 110001.
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NEW DELHI- 110001.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
Page No.# 2/16
785621
ASSAM.
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
GOLAGHAT
785621
ASSAM.
6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
JORHAT
JORHAT
785108.
7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
JORHAT
785108
ASSAM.
8:THE COORDINATOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-05
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A W AMAN, MR. SURAJIT DAS,MR S T ADNAN,MR
SARFRAZ NAWAZ
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Date : 09-09-2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. A.W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.
Deka, learned CGC for the respondent no.1; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel,
Page No.# 3/16
appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the respondent
no.2; Mr. G. Sarma, standing counsel for FT and Border matters, representing
respondent nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt.
Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 6.
Challenge in this writ petition:
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, namely, Md. Harjat Ali @ Hazrat Ali @ Md. Hajarat Ali,
has assailed the opinion dated 20.09.2022, passed by the learned Member,
Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No. FTG 135/2011, [corresponding to SP's
Enquiry No. 19/2007], thereby holding the petitioner abovenamed as a foreigner
of post 25.03.1971 stream.
Pleading and evidence before the Foreigners Tribunal:
3) Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner had entered appearance
in the case and submitted his written statement of defence. He had stated
regarding the discrepancy in his name and names of other members of his
family, which is as follows:-
a. It was stated that his name was Md. Hazrat Ali, but his name
was wrongly written as Md. Harjat Ali and Md. Hajarat Ali in certain
documents and that Md. Hajarat Ali, Md. Harjat Ali and Md. Hazrat Ali
is same and one person.
b. He had stated that the name of his father is Md. Jamiruddin, but
in some documents, his name is written as Jamiruddin, Jamiratddin,
Jamiratdin and Md. Jamiratddin, which is the name of same and one
person.
c. The name of his grandfather is Shobdul Sekh, but in some
Page No.# 4/16
documents, his name is written as Shobdul, and both is same and one
person.
4) It was stated that his projected grandfather and father were
resident of Samdhara Gaon, P.S. Rupahihat, District- Nagaon, Assam. The
petitioner came to Golaghat District and resided in various rented houses. In the
year 1984, he had purchased agricultural land in Salmora Tup, Golaghat and in
the year 1993, he had purchased residential land in the same village and since
then, he is residing in Village- Salmora Tup and when he started to permanently
reside in Village Salmora Tup and then he had entered his name in the voter's
list at Salmora Tup under Sarupathar Constituency, in Golaghat District. The
petitioner had projected that he was born and brought up in village- Samdhara,
Dist. Nagaon and his family has been residing in the said village before 1966.
He claimed that his father's name was enrolled in the voter's list of 1965 and
1970 in the same village, and his name was enrolled in the voter's list of 1997,
2005 and 2015, in Village- Salmora Tup. It was stated that the age of the
concerned persons in the voter's list are given by the B.L.O. or the Census
Officer and hence, the age are not correctly mentioned in a certified copy. The
petitioner had stated about the persons whose names appear in the electoral
roll of 1965, 1970, 1997, 2005 and 2015. The petitioner has stated that vide
sale deed registered on 15.05.1984 and 22.07.1993, he had purchased land in
Salmora Tup. He has a Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short), dated
03.12.2015, in the name of Hajarat Ali. He had also referred to the contents of
copy of School Transfer Certificate issued by the Principal of Juria H.S. School,
Dist. Nagaon, where his date of birth is recorded as 01.10.1959. Accordingly,
the petitioner had stated that he was a citizen of India and the proceeding has
been initiated illegally and for harassment. The petitioner has also stated that
Page No.# 5/16
his mother had expired in the year 1967 and her name was not entered in the
electoral roll of 1970.
5) The evidence of the petitioner as DW-1 contains statement
similar to the contents of his written statement. As per his evidence-on-affidavit,
he had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) copy of his Photo
Identification Certificate issued by the Govt. Gaonburah of Halmoratup Gaon
(Ext.1); (ii) certified copy of electoral roll of 1965 (Ext.2), containing the names
of Jamiruddin, his father and Sahera Khatun, his mother; (iii) certified copy of
electoral roll of 1970 (Ext.3), containing the name of Jamiruddin, his father; (iv)
photocopy of electoral roll of 1975 [Ext.3(A)]; (v) copy of sale deed registered
on 15.05.1984 (Ext.4); (vi) copy of sale deed dated 22.07.1993 (Ext.5); (vii)
certified copy of electoral roll of 1997 (Ext.6), containing his name, Hajarat Ali;
(viii) certified copy of electoral roll of 2005 (Ext.7), containing his name, Hajarat
Ali; (ix) certified copy of electoral roll of 2015 (Ext.8), containing his name,
Hajarat Ali; (x) although as per the evidence-on-affidavit, EPIC of the petitioner
dated 03.12.2015 was Ext.9, but the document exhibited as Ext.9 is the School
Transfer Certificate dated 24.04.2018, in the name of Hajarat Ali; (xi) as per the
evidence-on-affidavit, photocopy of School Transfer Certificate dated
04.01.1969, issued by the Principal of Telia Pathar Muktab School is Ext.10, but
the said exhibited photocopy is marked as Ext.9(i), and it may be stated that
there is no endorsement in the said exhibited document that the same was
proved in original; (xii) as per the evidence-on-affidavit, EPIC of the petitioner
dated 03.12.2015 is Ext.9, but the said document is marked as Ext.10.
6) The petitioner had examined Smt. Rupalim Sarma, Principal of
Juria H.S. School, Nagaon since year 2020 as DW-2. She had stated in her
examination-in-chief that she had submitted Ext.9 alongwith the documents of
Page No.# 6/16
Tetelia Pathar Muktab School, where Md. Hazarat Ali, son of Md. Jamir Uddin,
resident of Vill. Samdhora has studied has been exhibited as Ext.9(1). She had
deposed that she has produced the original copy of Ext.(1) [ sic. ought to have
been Ext.9(1)], school admission register for the year 1969 and the counterfoil
copy of Ext.9 was produced before the Tribunal. She had stated that as per the
School admission register produced by her, the serial number of the name of
Md. Hazarat Ali, son of Md. Jamir Uddin, resident of Samadhora is mentioned.
She had stated that as per column 12 of the admission register, the date of birth
of the abovenamed person is mentioned as 01.10.1959 and in column 13, 14
and 15, the age of the student as per admission in their school on 23.01.1969
was 22 years, 3 months and 9 days. She had stated that the student was
admitted as per Ext.9(1) and as Ext.9(1) is dated 31.12.1968, the age of the
student was 9 years then and therefore, the date of birth, which as per column
12 is 01.10.1959, is completely wrong and according to her, the date of birth of
the above-named student was 31.09.1959. The signature in Ext.9(A) is of Sri
Prasanna Kumar Kalita, the previous Principal with seal of their school. She had
stated that for her identity, alongwith her school certificate, she had submitted
the order dated 09.11.2020, of her appointment as Principal.
7) The petitioner had also examined Sri Prasanna Kumar Kalita,
the former Principal of Juria H.S. School as DW-3. He had stated that he had
taken over charge as Principal of the School in 2016 and superannuated in the
year 2019. He had stated that as per Ext.9(1), on 20.01.1969, Md. Hazarat Ali,
son of Md. Jamir Uddin, resident of Vill. Samdhora was admitted to the School
where he was working. He had stated that in the original record of year 1969,
the date of birth is mentioned in column 12 but while issuing Ext.9, he had put
the date of birth as 01.10.1959 and before that, the date of birth was not
Page No.# 7/16
mentioned in column-12. It was stated that the date of birth of the student was
01.10.1959, but the actual date of birth should have been 31.--.1959 (the space
under dash-mark is found erased by applying whitener). He had also stated that
though Ext.9 was a duplicate copy, but he had forgotten to mention it as
duplicate. He had stated that the signature and seal of the Principal in Ext.9 (A)
belonged to him.
8) It may be mentioned that as per order dated 23.12.2021, due
to absence of the Asstt. Govt. Pleader, the cross-examination of DW-3 was
dispensed with.
Impugned opinion:
9) The learned Tribunal, vide opinion dated 20.09.2022, answered
the reference in favour of the State by declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner
of post 25.03.1971 stream. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciating the
materials available on record, observed to the effect that when one's citizenship
is being questioned by the State, the petitioner was required to disclose the
basic material facts which were within his specific knowledge as regards when
he was born and there was no mention of his age and remained completely
silent regarding the names of his great grandparents, grandparental lineage. It
was observed that the documents exhibited by the petitioner are in two
different sets. In the first set, was the electoral rolls of 1965 (Ext.2) and 1970
(Ext.3) and the school transfer certificate dated 24.04.2018 (Ext.9), bearing
details of before cut-off date of 25.03.1971. The second set of documents were
of post cut-off date, being sale deed (Ext.4), sale deed (Ext.5), voter list of 1997
(Ext.6), electoral roll of 2005 (Ext.7) and electoral roll of 2015 (Ext.8).
10) The learned Tribunal had discarded the Gaonburah's certificate
Page No.# 8/16
dated 22.04.2018 (Ext.1), by which he had certified that Md. Hazarat Ali was
residing in the village within his jurisdiction because from the entries thereof, it
cannot be ascertained on what basis and on relying on which documents, the
said certificate was issued. Moreover, it was also observed that from Ext.1, it
cannot be understood as to whether prior to the issuance of the said certificate
any inquiry or verification was ever conducted. Moreover, it was held that under
the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the Govt. Gaonburah has not
been vested with any power to issue such certificate. Moreover, it was held that
the said certificate was issued by relying on the entries in the voter's list of
2005.
11) The learned Tribunal had made observations regarding entry of
the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.10.1959, as contained in Ext.9 and
31.09.1959, as stated by DW-2. However, at this juncture, it would be
appropriate to mention that the English calendar month of September does not
have 31 days and therefore, the date of birth has to be construed to be
01.10.1959, as stated by DW-2. The said point appears to have been missed out
by the learned Tribunal also.
12) Be that as it may, in light of the deposition of DW-3, where he
had stated that Ext.9 was a duplicate, the learned Tribunal had observed that
the original transfer certificate of the petitioner was not proved by the petitioner.
The learned Tribunal had disbelieved the entries in Ext.9(i) on the ground that if
the petitioner was admitted in 1969 in Class-IV, how it was possible for the
petitioner to leave the said school on 31.12.1968 by passing out Class-VI.
Moreover, the learned Tribunal took note of the fact that the said certificate was
issued few months before his retirement and relied on the case of Union of
India & Ors. V. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, (1995) 3 SCC 17. Moreover, it was
Page No.# 9/16
observed that the reference was made in 2007 and the reference was registered
before the said learned Tribunal in the year 2011.
13) Accordingly, it was held that Hazrat Ali is the son of Jamiratdin of
Salmora Tup village and that the petitioner had failed to establish any
relationship with Jamir Uddin, son of Sobdul, whose name appears in Ext. nos.
2, 3 and 3(A). Thus, the second set of documents, which were of post cut-off
date did not help the petitioner. Therefore, by the impugned opinion, the
reference was answered against the petitioner.
14) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the
learned Tribunal had answered the reference against the petitioner merely
because of minor mistake of spelling of the names of the parents and
grandparents in the voters list. It was submitted that the erroneous recording of
names in the voters list was not because of the petitioner. In support of the said
submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of
Sirajul Hoque v. The State of Assam & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 267/2019
[arising out of SLP(Crl.) 4500/2018].
15) It was also submitted that the evidence tendered by the
petitioner and his two other witnesses remained unrebutted and moreover,
there was no rebuttal evidence by the State and therefore, the evidence of the
petitioner, having remained unchallenged, ought to have been believed by the
learned Tribunal. In support of the said submissions, reliance is placed on the
case of State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (Dead) & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 561 and the
case of Anjana Biswas @ Anjana Sarkar Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)
7280/2021, decided on 28.09.2022.
16) It was also submitted that the reliance by the learned Tribunal
Page No.# 10/16
on the case of Union of India v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, (1995) 3 SCC 17,
was misplaced because the said case related to service law, where the
respondent therein had sought for correction of the date of his birth in the
service record after thirty years.
17) Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned opinion was not
sustainable and therefore, liable to be interfered with.
Submissions by the learned counsel for the FT matters:
18) The learned counsel for the FT and Border matters has made his
submissions in support of the impugned opinion. It was submitted that the
petitioner had failed to make a complete disclosure about his parental and his
own family in his written statement and therefore, the impugned opinion does
not warrant any interference.
Reasons and decision:
19) At the outset, it may be mentioned that in paragraph 3 of the
impugned opinion, the learned Tribunal had recorded its observation that the
petitioner had not disclosed basic material facts in his written statement, which
were in his specific knowledge, like date of birth, age, names of his
grandparents and grand-parental lineage. It was also observed that it is a
settled position that the party cannot traverse beyond pleadings and what is
pleaded can only be proved and not something which is not pleaded. Perhaps,
for the said reason, in this writ petition, the petitioner has withheld his written
statement and evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner as DW-1.
20) Therefore, the Court had to peruse the written statement as well
as Evidence-on-affidavit of the petitioner as DW-1 from the Tribunal's Record
(hereinafter referred to as 'TR' for short). The essential statements made by the
Page No.# 11/16
petitioner in his written statement have been stated in paragraph 3 and 4
above. The petitioner has vaguely stated that in the year 1984, he had
purchased agricultural land at Salmora Tup Gaon (also spelt as Chalmara in
some documents), Morongi Mouza, in the district of Golaghat, Assam and in the
year 1993, he had also purchased residential land in the same village. The said
two sale deeds dated 15.05.1984 and 22.07.1993 has been exhibited as Ext.4
and Ext.5, but the deed number is not mentioned in the written statement or in
the evidence-on-affidavit. Be that as it may, the said two exhibited sale deeds
are post 25.03.1971 documents. However, the said Salmora Tup Gaon is not the
village where the petitioner was born and brought-up.
21) In his written statement and evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner
has stated that his name is Hazrat Ali @ Md. Harjat Ali @ Md. Hajarat Ali, which
is one and same person. He had stated that his father is Md. Jamiruddin @
Jamiruddin @ Jamiratddin @ Jamiratdin @ Md. Janiratddin, which is one and
same person. He had stated that his grandfather is Shobdul Sekh @ Shobdul,
which is one and same person. However, the petitioner has not disclosed where
his father and his grandfather had resided and when they died. The petitioner
had disclosed the name of his grandmother as Jelekha Khatun, but to prove the
existence of the petitioner's grandfather and grandmother, no document has
been exhibited.
22) In his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has made a statement
to the effect that the name of Jamir Uddin, his projected father, son of Sobdul
Sheikh and Sahera Khatun, the name of his projected mother had appeared in
the voter list of 1965 of Village- Samdhadha. It has been stated that the name
of village- Samdharais wrongly written as Samdhadha.However, as a single
voter, the name Jamir Uddin, his projected father, son of Sobdul had appeared
Page No.# 12/16
in the voter list of 1970 of Village- Samdhora. There is no statement in the
written statement and/or any document to show as to what happened to the
projected mother after the year 1965. Similarly, there is no statement in the
written statement and/or any document to show as to what happened to the
projected father after the year 1970.
23) The petitioner has projected that he and his family had shifted to
Salmora Tup, for which he has exhibited the two sale deeds (Ext.4 and Ext.5)
and voter list of 1997 (Ext.6), 2005 (Ext.7), 2015 (Ext.8). However, the names
of no other family member appear in the exhibited voters list. The petitioner has
also exhibited the Electoral Voter Identity Card, but the said document is not a
proof of citizenship, which must be proved by cogent, reliable and admissible
evidence.
24) In his written statement and evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner
claims that he was born and brought-up in village- Samdhara, in Nagaon
District. On 18.05.2018, when the petitioner had sworn his evidence-on-
affidavit, his age was 58 years. Therefore, the petitioner was born sometime in
the year 1960.As per his school certificate [Ext.9(1)], the petitioner was born on
01.10.1959.The petitioner has exhibited photocopy of another school certificate
[Ext.9(i)], which is inadmissible in evidence because of unauthorized use of
State Emblem therein, which the school and its Headmaster is not authorized to
use. However, on a perusal of the evidence of Smt. RupalimSarma, DW-2, she
had stated that the school register and the counterfoil of the school certificate
were produced before the learned Tribunal. Although the TR contains a
photocopy of the school admission register, but the same has not been exhibited
by the petitioner and thus, not marked as an exhibit.
25) There appears to be an unnecessary controversy in the
Page No.# 13/16
calculation of the age of the petitioner, based on entries made in the school
certificate [Ext.9(i)]. The DW-3, namely, Prasanna Kumar Kalita, Retired
Headmaster of Juria High Secondary School had stated that as per the said
school certificate, the age of the petitioner was 9 years, 3 months as on
31.12.1968, therefore, he had written the date of birth as 01.10.1959. On the
other hand, Smt. RupalimSarma, DW-2, who was the then serving Headmistress
of the said school had stated that the date of birth was incorrect, it should have
been 31.09.1959. The learned Tribunal had therefore, by relying on the
evidence of DW-2, discarded the entries in the said school certificate. It appears
that the learned Tribunal and the DW-2 have both failed to remember that
September has 30 (thirty) days and therefore, the calculation of date, as made
by DW-3 is correct.
26) Be that as it may, it is trite that belatedly issued school
certificate can be accepted as evidence only if the school register is produced
and proved. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the
Supreme Court of India in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988
(Supp.) SCC 604, where it has been held that date of birth recorded in school
certificate or school register would have no evidentiary value unless the person
who furnished the information regarding the date of birth or parents are
examined; besides, the author of the certificate would have to prove the
certificate on the basis of school register.
27) In the case of Rafiqul Islam v. Union of India, 2018 (1) GLT 703 ,
a coordinate Division Bench of this Court had held that the Headmaster of the
school, who had issued the certificate, did not testify before the Tribunal
alongwith the admission register to prove the certificate and truthfulness of the
contents thereof and accordingly, it was held that the certificate had no
Page No.# 14/16
probative value.
28) Therefore, the school certificate [Ext.9(A) and Ext.9(i)] is not an
admissible evidence and therefore, the said exhibited documents fail to connect
the petitioner to his projected father.
29) In his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has disclosed the
name of his father as Jamiruddin. However, in the sale deeds [Ext.4 and Ext.5],
the name of his father has been written as Md. Jamirat Ddin. Thus, the
petitioner, for his convenience is changing the name of his father to match it
with the exhibited documents, because it is not believable that a real son would
call his father by using different alias.
30) Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the Court is
constrained to hold the petitioner has failed to show that the learned Tribunal
had committed any perversity in appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. It
would not be shown that the learned Tribunal had relied on any extraneous
materials while rendering its opinion.
31) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of
Sirajul Hoque (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not found
to help the petitioner. As per the said decision, the discrepancies in the way the
names of persons are spelt can be ignored only when the names of other family
members remain the same. In this case, the certified copies of the voters list
exhibited by the petitioner do not contain the names of any family member
other than the projected father and thereafter, the petitioner and his wife.
Power of Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction:
32) The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Central Council for
Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. V. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC 733: (2023) 0
Page No.# 15/16
Supreme(SC) 763, has reiterated the principles on which a writ court can
exercise the power to issue writ of certiorari. The relevant paragraph thereof is
quoted below:-
"17. In Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. Vs. Bikartan
Das and ors, reported in (2023) SCCOnline SC 996, wherein the Apex Court has
expounded the principles on which a writ Court can exercise the writ of certiorari.
The Apex Court in this Judgment after examining the precedents in this regard
held that there are two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly
when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari.
The first cardinal principle is that when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari
a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does
not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior
tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be
without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for
those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law
is apparent on the face of the record. It is not be issued on mere asking.
The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution is that even if some action or order challenged in the writ
petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial
justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary
remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. The
Apex Court held that so far as the errors of law are concerned, a writ of certiorari
could be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A mere
error of law is not sufficient to attract the writ of certiorari. It must be one which is
manifest or patent on the face of the record. Mere formal or technical errors, even
of law, are not sufficient, so as to attract a writ of certiorari.
Coming to the facts on the present case, in view of the discussions above, we do
not find any error of law or lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal while issuing the
impugned order."
33) Therefore, there was no necessity of the Court to examine
and/or re-appreciate the evidence available before the Foreigners Tribunal. Yet
Page No.# 16/16
as an exception, which is not the rule, the pleadings and evidence has been
examined only because the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted
that citizenship is a valuable right. Therefore, this exercise is not intended to be
cited as a precedent for any other case.
34) Accordingly, the Court is inclined to pass the following -
ORDER
35) The challenge to the impugned opinion fails and resultantly, this
writ petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the consequences of the impugned
opinion dated 20.09.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal,
Jorhat, in Case No. FTG 135/2011, [corresponding to SP's Enquiry No. 19/2007],
thereby holding the petitioner abovenamed as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971
stream, shall follow.
36) There shall be no order as to cost.
37) The Registry shall send back the Tribunal's record along with a
copy of this judgment and order, to be made a part of the record by the learned
Tribunal for future reference.
JUDGE JUDGE.
Comparing Assistant
