JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions involves 61 petitioners, who have been declared as foreigners by the respective Foreigners Tribunals. They have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the legality and validity of such declarations. Since the issue involved is the same, which is - whether the petitioners are illegal migrants to Assam after the cutoff date i.e. 25.3.1971, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order, dealing with each and every case independently. 2. One interesting feature of all the cases, except three, is that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Foreigners Tribunals are all Ex-parte. The petitioners, except in three cases, did not respond to the proceedings before the Tribunals, which the learned State counsel describes as a methodical ploy to prolong the proceedings on untenable grounds. 3. Barring three, in all the cases, the common ground(s) is/are that the Ex-parte proceedings and judgments are because of non-receipt of notice, and/or although the engaged advocate (s) was/were entrusted with the required instructions/documents, they did not take proper steps towards defending the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are all Indian citizens. They have annexed photocopies and/or typed copies of certain documents, mostly voter lists in support of their such claim. Barring one case, all the cases are after the decision in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920 . As we all know that, in the said decision, the Apex Court struck down the provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. As a result, the Tribunals and the appellate Tribunals constituted under the said Act, ceased to function and the cases pending before the 1. M.D.T. stood transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964. The direction was issued for deciding the pending cases in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, 1946. The direction was also issued to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to effectively deal with the cases of foreigners, who have illegally come from Bangladesh or illegally residing in Assam. 4. The direction was issued for deciding the pending cases in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, 1946. The direction was also issued to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to effectively deal with the cases of foreigners, who have illegally come from Bangladesh or illegally residing in Assam. 4. When the effect and direction of the Apex Court was sought to be diluted, by promulgating the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006 and also by amending the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, by two pieces of subordinate legislations, the Apex Court quashed both the pieces of legislation by its judgment and order reported in (2007)1SCC174 (Sarbanandu Sonowal (II) v. Union of India and Ors.). While allowing the writ petition, the Apex Court issued direction to the respondents to forthwith implement the directions issued in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) case, referred to above. It was observed that no time limit for implementation of the direction was fixed in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) case, with the hope that the Central Government would implement the direction within a reasonable time, but there was no adequate reasons for justifying the non-implementation of the said direction. Accordingly, the direction was issued to the Union of India to constitute sufficient number of Tribunals under the 1964 Order effectively dealing with the cases of foreigners within a period of four months from the date of the judgment, which is 5th December, 2006. 5. In the aforesaid decision in Sonowal (II) case, the Apex Court while deprecating the action of the respondents towards promulgating the aforesaid two pieces of legislation, observed that there is lack of will in the matter ensuring that the illegal migrants are sent out of the country. The Apex Court observed thus: 64. In the face of the clear directions issued in Sonowal I it was for the authority concerned to strengthen the Tribunals under the 1964 Order and to make them work. Instead of doing so, the 2006 Order has been promulgated. It is not as if the respondents have found the 1964 Order unworkable in the State of Assam; they have simply refused to enforce that Order in spite of directions in that behalf by this Court. It is not for us to speculate on the reasons for this attitude. Instead of doing so, the 2006 Order has been promulgated. It is not as if the respondents have found the 1964 Order unworkable in the State of Assam; they have simply refused to enforce that Order in spite of directions in that behalf by this Court. It is not for us to speculate on the reasons for this attitude. The earlier decision in Sonowal I has referred to the relevant materials showing that such uncontrolled immigration into the North-Eastern States posed a threat to the integrity of the nation. What was therefore called for was a strict implementation of the directions of this Court earlier issued in Sonowal I so as to ensure that illegal immigrants are sent out of the country, while in spite of lapse of time, the Tribunals under the 1964 Order had not been strengthened as directed in Sonowal I. Why it was not so done, has not been made clear by the Central Government. We have to once again lament with Sonowal I that there is a lack of will in the matter of ensuring that illegal immigrants are sent out of the country. 6. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 reads as under- 9. Burden of profit in any case not falling under Section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), lie upon such person. 7. The Act provides wide ranging powers to deal with all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigner for prohibiting regulating or restricting their or his entry into India or their presence or continued presence including his arrest, detention and confinement. The most important provision is Section 9 which casts the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall lie upon such person. The most important provision is Section 9 which casts the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall lie upon such person. Therefore, where an order made under the Foreigners Act is challenged and a question arises whether the person against whom the order has been made is a foreigner or not, the burden of proving that he is not a foreigner is upon such a person. 8. In Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammed 1961CriLJ703, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi served an order on Guaus Mohammad to leave India with in three days as he was a Pakistani national. He challenged the order before the High Court which set aside the order by observing that there must be prima facie material on the basis of which the authority can proceed to pass an order under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In appeal the Constitution Bench reversed the judgment of the High Court holding that onus of showing that he is not a foreigner was upon the respondent. 9. The Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) case emphasizing on the general rule in the leading democracies of the world pertaining to citizenship observed thus: It needs to be emphasized that the general rule in the leading democracies of the world is that where a person claims to be a citizen of a particular country, the burden is upon him to prove that he is a citizen of that country. 10. Further, in paragraph-17 of the said judgment, the Apex Court while holding that there is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a particular country observed thus: There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth, (ii) place of birth, (iii) name of his parents, (iv) their place of birth and citizenship, Sometimes the place of birth of his grand parents may also be relevant like under Section 6A(1)(d) of the citizenships Act. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth, (ii) place of birth, (iii) name of his parents, (iv) their place of birth and citizenship, Sometimes the place of birth of his grand parents may also be relevant like under Section 6A(1)(d) of the citizenships Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 11. In the instant batch of writ petitions, as will be noticed a little later, in almost all the cases, the petitioners did not discharge their burden of proof, by adducing any evidence and/or proving the photocopies of the documents, mostly voter list. The common feature of the cases is that the petitioners have made use of copies of voter lists at random so as to indicate any name resembling theirs. Their whole emphasis is mainly on such voter list and not anything else including oral evidence to prove their citizenships. The reason is obvious. It is very easy to pick up any voter list, find out names and particulars resembling theirs, obtain certified copies of the same and dump them to the writ Court taking it for granted that the writ Court will swallow the same unmindful of requirement of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. After having generally noticed, the grounds on which the petitioners have challenged the judgments of the Tribunals as well as the position of law, I now deal with the cases individually. W.P. (C) No. 1094 of 2008 DISTRICT SONITPUR (Arising out of Ex-parte judgments and orders dated 5.10.2007 in FT (DC) Case Nos. 89/2007; 90/2007 and 91/2007) 13. After having generally noticed, the grounds on which the petitioners have challenged the judgments of the Tribunals as well as the position of law, I now deal with the cases individually. W.P. (C) No. 1094 of 2008 DISTRICT SONITPUR (Arising out of Ex-parte judgments and orders dated 5.10.2007 in FT (DC) Case Nos. 89/2007; 90/2007 and 91/2007) 13. The three petitioners who have been declared to be foreigners being the illegal migrants to Assam after 25.3.1971, have filed this writ petition. All the independent judgments delivered on the same date i.e. 5.10.2007 are Ex-parte judgments. Although 3 separate proceedings were initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the independent references and thus, independent writ petitions ought to have been filed, the petitioners have chosen to file a single writ petition challenging the independent judgments pertaining to their cases. However, the matter has been considered on its own merit. 14. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 Mustt. Sarabari Begum @ Syera Begum, wife of Ruwan Hussain @ Mustakin is the mother of the petitioner No. 2 namely, Md. Jakir Hussain, son of Late Mustakin AH. The petitioner No. 3 is Mustt. Tabashum Begum @ Sabari Khatoon, wife of petitioner No. 2 i.e. Md. Jakir Hussain. It is the case of the petitioners that they are all citizens oflndiaby birth and their forefathers belonged to the State of Bihar. Referring to a particular plot of land stated to be in their possession without, however, indicating anything as to since when they are in possession of the land, the petitioners have contended that since they are in occupation of the said plot of land, they are citizens of India. In this connection, they have annexed Annexure-'A' documents dated 10.3.1995 issued by the Circle Officer, Tezpur Revenue Circle, Tezpur, which is a certificate certifying that the land described in the certificate stands in the name of Mustt. Sayera Begum. 15. The petitioners have also enclosed Annexure-'B' document which is a form of declaration for enrolment as a voter. The declaration was made on 21.4.1993 and in the particular column, the name of one Sahera Begum, wife of Late Mustakib, aged 60 years as of 1st January, 1993 appears. 16. Annexure-'C' and 'D' are the copes of the purported Voters Identity Cards issued in favour of the petitioners No. 2 and 3. The declaration was made on 21.4.1993 and in the particular column, the name of one Sahera Begum, wife of Late Mustakib, aged 60 years as of 1st January, 1993 appears. 16. Annexure-'C' and 'D' are the copes of the purported Voters Identity Cards issued in favour of the petitioners No. 2 and 3. Although no dates are indicated in the Identity Cards, but it can be presumed that while Annexure-'C' Identity Card was issued after 1.1.2003, Annexure-'D' Identity Card was issued after 1.1.2005 as respective age of the card holders are indicated as on 1.1.2003 and 1.1.2005 respectively. 17. In the writ petition, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners did not get opportunity of submitting the relevant documents before the Tribunal due to non-receipt of notice from the Tribunal. Such statement has been made in Paragraph-10 of the judgment. Thus, according to the petitioners, they could have proved their citizenship before the Tribunal, had they been served with notice. 18. On perusal of all the 3 orders dated 5.10.2007 passed in the aforesaid FT. Cases, it is seen that the petitioners, in spite of service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal. In this connection, I have verified the case records of the Tribunal. So far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, although in the writ petition, she has taken the alternative name of her husband as "wife of Ruwan Hussain @ Mustakin", but in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the name of her husband finds mention only as Ruwan Hussain and there is no other alternative name. 19. The notice from the Tribunal was received by the petitioner No. 2 Md. Jakir Hussain whom she claims to be her son. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 received notice for himself as well as for his wife i.e. the petitioner No. 3. Notice was received under his clear signature. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners did not receive notice in respect of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is not the case of the petitioners that although the petitioner No. 2 was served with the notices, but he did not inform the petitioners No. 1 and 2 about the proceedings before the Tribunal. Further under Order 5 Rule 1, 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the service of notice on the adult member of the family is sufficient. 20. Further under Order 5 Rule 1, 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the service of notice on the adult member of the family is sufficient. 20. From the above, it will be seen that the plea of the petitioners that they did not receive any notice from the Tribunal is a false plea. On this score alone, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, independent of such a position and also independent of an Ex-parte proceeding before the Tribunal, when the petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof, as envisaged under Section 9of the Foreigners Act, 1947,1 have examined their case as projected in the writ petition in respect of their claim that they are all Indian citizens by birth. 21. As noticed above, Annexure-'A' is a document pertains to one Mustt. Sayera Begum and not Mustt. Sarabari Begum, in whose name, the proceeding before the Tribunal was initiated. In the document, she is also not described as Sarabari Begum. Further, in the document, the name of her husband is shown as Mustakin while in the proceeding before the Tribunal her husband's name is Md. Ruwan Husain and the notice was also served mentioning her husband as Ruwan Husaain. Thus, this document on the face of it, does not belong to her and even if, same belongs to her, same does not prove her citizenship. As noticed above, the document is of 1995. The cut off date being 25.3.1971, such a document unless the linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India is established to prove one's Indian Citizenship, is of no consequence. 22. Annexure-'B' also pertains to one Sahera Begum wife of Late Mustakin and not Mustakin. The said document is a declaration made by the head of the family for incorporation of name in the voter-list. The declaration was made on 21.4.1993 by one Md. Khaleque Husen and the age of Sahera Begum was declared to be 60 as on 1.1.1993. Thus, this document also does not belong to the petitioner and even it does, cannot prove her Indian citizenship. 23. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that her name was incorporated in the Electoral Roll prior to 1966 of Tezpur Legislative Assembly Constituency. However, no document has been produced to establish the same. 24. 23. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that her name was incorporated in the Electoral Roll prior to 1966 of Tezpur Legislative Assembly Constituency. However, no document has been produced to establish the same. 24. As noted above, Annexure-'C' and 'D' are the Voter Identity Cards purportedly issued in favour of the petitioners No. 2 and 3. Interestingly, as against the claim of the petitioners that the husband, father and father-in-law of the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively is Late Mustakin Ali, but in Annexure-'C' Voter Identity Card, the father's name of the elector Jakir Husain is Md. Muslim. Similarly, in Annexure-'D' Voter Identity Card, which is stated of the petitioner No. 3, her husband is described as Md. Roban and not Md. Jakir Hussain. 25. If we go by the aforesaid identity cards, the petitioner No. 2 i.e. the husband of the petitioner No. 3 is younger than his wife i.e. the petitioner No. 3. While in Annexure-'C identify card, the age of the card holder is 20 as on 1.1.2003, the ajge of the Annexure-'D' card holder, whom the petitioner No. 2 claims to be his wife, is 23 years as on 1.1.2005. 26. Apart from the above, such voter identity cards are of no consequence, inasmuch as, the cut off date is 25.3.1971 and unless it is established that the persons concerned are not illegal migrants and/or they were born in India after 25.3.1971 from their Indian parents, within the meaning of provisions relating to Citizenship Act and Foreigners Act, no amount of documents produced, which are of post 25.3.1971 without any linkage to their Indian origin within the meaning the said Act, are of no consequence. Moreover, when the documents itself have caught the petitioners red handed coupled with the fact that they have taken recourse to falsehood in filing the writ petition and also failure to establish that they are Indian citizens by discharging their burden of proof to that effect, the irresistible and only conclusion which could be arrived at is that the petitioners are all foreign nationals and are illegal migrants to Assam. 27. In the Tribunal, the prosecution duly established its case by proving the documents/ Exhibits and the petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof of Indian citizenship. 28. 27. In the Tribunal, the prosecution duly established its case by proving the documents/ Exhibits and the petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof of Indian citizenship. 28. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed upholding the impugned judgments of the Tribunal. 29. The Superintendent of Police i.e. the Respondent No. 2 is directed to take immediate steps to take the petitioners into custody and to keep them under custody till they are deported from India. W.P. (C) No. 1355 of 2008 DISTRICT BARPETA (Arising out of Ex-parte judgment and order dated 31.12.2007 in FT Case No. 164/ 2007) 30. The four petitioners who have been declared as foreigners and illegal migrants to Assam by the Foreigners Tribunal-I, Barpeta have filed this writ petition for setting aside and quashing of the said judgment and order. As in the first case, in this case also, the judgment of the Tribunal is pursuant to Ex-parte proceeding. According to the petitioners, on receipt of notice from the Tribunal, they had engaged two advocates namely, Mr. Nazrul Islam and Mr. Danesh Ali of Barpeta Court to represent them in the proceeding before the Tribunal, but due to reasons best known to the said counsel, they did not appear before the Tribunal nor produced the documents annexed to the writ petition to prove that the petitioners are Indian citizens. Further allegation made against the learned Counsel is that they also did not advise the petitioners to adduce evidence. Thus, according to the petitioners, the inaction on the part of the learned Counsel resulted in Ex-parte judgment and order challenged in this writ petition. 31. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 31.12.2007 has answered the reference, as to whether the petitioners entered into Assam after 25.3.1971 without any valid document, in the affirmative. In spite of service of notice, the petitioners did not submit written statement nor adduce any evidence. On the other hand, the prosecution examined the Enquiry Officer as P. W. 1, who in his deposition proved the enquiry report holding the petitioners to be foreigners and entered into Assam after 25.3.1971. The Enquiry Officer in his deposition stated about the failure on the part of the petitioners to produce any document pertaining to their citizenship of India. The Enquiry Officer also examined two co-villagers, who also suspected the petitioners to be foreigners. The Enquiry Officer in his deposition stated about the failure on the part of the petitioners to produce any document pertaining to their citizenship of India. The Enquiry Officer also examined two co-villagers, who also suspected the petitioners to be foreigners. Since the burden of proof was with the petitioners but they did not submit any written statement and adduce any evidence, the Tribunal had no option but to proceed Ex-parte. 32. The plea of the petitioners that their learned Counsel did not take any steps in the matter is not at all believable and cannot help the petitioners. The petitioners cannot escape from their liability to discharge the burden of proof of their Indian citizenship putting the blame on their engaged Counsel. It was their bounden duty to appear before the Tribunal, which in fact, they did, but failed to discharge their burden by submitting written statement and adducing evidence. There is nothing to show that any complaint was lodged against the counsel. They are also not party in this proceeding. 33. The reference was received by the Tribunal on 7.5.2007 and the petitioners duly appeared on the date fixed which was 18.6.2007. The prayer for adjournment was granted fixing the matter in 24.7.2007. On 24.7.2007, the petitioners did not appear before the Tribunal and the case was adjourned to 27.8.2007 on the basis of the prayer petition filed by the engaged Counsel. 27.8.2007 was the date fixed for filing written statement. However, on 27.8.2007, the petitioners did not appear before the Tribunal and the case was adjourned to 28.9.2007 on the basis of the prayer made by their engaged Counsel. On 28.9.2007 also, the petitioners remained absent and the matter was again adjourned to 26.10.2007 on the basis of the petition filed by their engaged advocate. Same repetition was made on 26.10.2007. Noticing the fact that the petitioners had already taken four adjournments, the adjournment prayed for was granted as the last chance and the matter was fixed on 21.11.2007 on which date also, the petitioners remained absent without any steps. 34. After the aforesaid dates, the matter was fixed on 17.12.2007 on which date, the petitioners remained absent without any steps. Thus, naturally, the Tribunal had no option than to order for Ex-parte hearing fixing the date as 29.12.2007. 34. After the aforesaid dates, the matter was fixed on 17.12.2007 on which date, the petitioners remained absent without any steps. Thus, naturally, the Tribunal had no option than to order for Ex-parte hearing fixing the date as 29.12.2007. The matter was heard on that day examining the I/O who proved the documents exhibited and thereafter, the impugned judgment and order was delivered on 31.12.2007. From the aforesaid position of the case, the plea of the petitioners that their engaged Counsel did not take any steps, is based on falsehood. In such an important matter, in which they were the suspects as foreigners, they did not respond to the proceedings before the Tribunal seriously, which in the normal circumstances would have the situation, had the petitioners been the Indian citizens. Now, coming to the writ Court they have blamed their engaged Counsel without making them party in this proceeding. 35. In the Tribunal, the prosecution duly established its version of the case by proving the documents/exhibits which include the enquiry report against the petitioners. 36. Independent of the above position and since the petitioners have claimed to be Indian citizens on the basis of the documents annexed to the writ petition, I have examined the case of the petitioners as projected in the writ petition. As per the statements in the writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 is son of Late Sadar Mondal. He claims that he was a voter even in 1966 (Annexure-1) in the Barpeta Legislative Assembly Constituency. Further statement made in the writ petition is that the petitioners cast their vote in 2005 Assembly Election (Annexure-3). Annexure-2 is the photocopy of the certificate purportedly issued by the Howly Town Committee, Howly certifying that Md. Maslem Mandal, son of Late Sadar Mandal is an inhabitant of Howly Town under police station and district Barpeta. The certificate is dated 10.3.2008 and has been issued by the Chairman, Howly Town Committee. 37. Thus, the above are the 3 (three) documents (photocopies) on the basis of which the four petitioners claim that they are Indian citizens. While the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife, the petitioners No. 3 and 4 are their sons. Their names are stated to have appeared in the 2005 Voters List pertaining to 43 No. Barpeta Legislative Assembly (Annexure-3). 38. While the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife, the petitioners No. 3 and 4 are their sons. Their names are stated to have appeared in the 2005 Voters List pertaining to 43 No. Barpeta Legislative Assembly (Annexure-3). 38. Annexure-1 Voter List of 1966 (extract only and the photocopy) pertains to Muslim Ali, Son of Sadar, aged 22 years. The name of the petitioner No. 1 is Moslem Mondal and not Muslim Ali. On being pointed out the same, the learned Counsel for the petitioners simply brushed aside the same stating the same to be a mistake on the part of the enumerator. When the question of citizenship is involved, such things cannot be taken lightly, more particularly, when the petitioners failed to produce any other voter list from 1966 to 2005 showing incorporation of their names in such voters list. If the petitioner No. 1 was a voter in 1966 there is no reason as to why he could not produce any other voter list of post 1966 containing his name except the one of 2005. 39. Annexure-2 certificate simply certifies that the petitioner No. 1 is an inhabitant of Howly Town and the certificate is dated 18.3.2008. This cannot prove Indian citizenship of the petitioners. 40. Annexure-3 is the voter list of 2005 (extract and photocopy only) in which the names of the petitioners are stated to have been incorporated. The incorporation of the names in any of the voter list prepared after the cut off date i.e. 25th March, 1971 is of no consequence unless the linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India is established. It is in the year 2005, for the first time the names of the petitioners were incorporated in the voter list. However, in this document also there are contradictions in the names in the said voter list and the names of the petitioners disclosed in the writ petition. The respective age of the petitioners have been indicated as 70, 61, 23, 19 years. If that be so, the petitioner No. 1, who claims that he was a voter of 1966, would not have been 22 years of age in 1966. The respective age of the petitioners have been indicated as 70, 61, 23, 19 years. If that be so, the petitioner No. 1, who claims that he was a voter of 1966, would not have been 22 years of age in 1966. Further, if the petitioners are Indian citizens by birth as they have claimed in the writ petition, they could have shown the documents pertaining to the same and at least the voter list prior to 2005, more so, when the petitioners No. 1 and 2, as per the age recorded in the voter list of 2005 as on 1.1.2005 were 70 and 61 years. 1966 to 2005 is a period of long 40 years. Had the petitioners No. 1 and 2 been Indian citizens, they could have shown any valid document covering this period of 40 years, instead of relying upon false document of 1966 and the voter list of 2005. 41. From the above, it is crystal clear that even in the writ petition, the petitioners have miserably failed to establish their Indian citizenship. Incorporation of their names in 2005 voters list is of no consequence as the cut off date is 25.3.1971. 42. In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed which I accordingly do and the impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.2007 passed in FT Case No. 164/2007 by the Foreigners Tribunal-I, Barpeta is upheld. Consequently, the direction is issued to the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta i.e. the Respondent No. 3 to take the petitioners into custody immediately and keep them under custody till such time they are deported from India. W.P. (C) No. 75 of 2008 DISTRICT UDALGURI (Arising out of Ex-parte judgment and order dated 10.1.2006 in FT Case No. 938/ 2004) 43. In this case also, the petitioner claims to be an Indian citizen. As in the earlier two cases, in this case also, the judgment of the Tribunal declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner is Ex-parte. The petitioner has only annexed the Quit India Notice dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure-'C' to the writ petition) which was issued to her pursuant to the judgment and order in FT Case No. 938/ 2004, but she has not annexed the copy of the judgment of the Tribunal. 44. The petitioner has only annexed the Quit India Notice dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure-'C' to the writ petition) which was issued to her pursuant to the judgment and order in FT Case No. 938/ 2004, but she has not annexed the copy of the judgment of the Tribunal. 44. According to the petitioner, she read up to Class VI at Tangla Model High School and left the school in 1969 and that she was born of Tangla in 1957. In this connection, she has annexed copy of the certificate dated 24.12.2007 purportedly issued by the Headmaster, Tangla Model High School, Tangla. The petitioner has also annexed the photocopy of the purported certified copy of the voters list (extract only) of 1965 pertaining to Panery Assembly Constituency containing the name of Dhirendra and Paresh Chandra. According to the petitioner, she got married to one Paresh Chandra Sana in the year 1974 and since then, has been permanently residing at Tangla Town with her husband. She has 3 sons and 3 daughters. Two out of 3 daughters are married. According to her, she has been residing there with her husband and 3 sons and one minor daughter. 45. The petitioner was surprised and shocked to receive Annexure-'C' Quit India Notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Udalguri stated to have been issued pursuant to the judgment of the Foreigners Tribunal, Udalguri in FT Case No. 938/2004. According to the petitioner, she had no knowledge about the proceeding before the Tribunal as no notice was served on her. 46. I have gone through the records received from the Foreigners Trbiunal, Udalguri. On perusal of the same, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioner has taken recourse to falsehood. The notice pertaining to the case before the Tribunal was duly received by her on 11.8.2005 with her clear signature. Thus, it is not the case of non-receipt of notice. Even after service of notice, the petitioner remained absent in the proceeding before the Tribunal as a consequence of which same resulted in Ex-parte judgment and order. As per the judgment, the fact that the petitioner is a foreign national, is duly proved. The prosecution duly established its case by proving the documents/exhibits and the petitioner decided not to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. 47. As per the judgment, the fact that the petitioner is a foreign national, is duly proved. The prosecution duly established its case by proving the documents/exhibits and the petitioner decided not to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. 47. Independent of the proceeding in the Tribunal and the judgment thereof, I have duly taken note of the plea of the petitioner raised in the writ petition. Annexure-'A' certificate dated 24.7.2007 pertaining to 1969 is not at all believable. If the petitioner was a student of Class-VI in 1969 as has been certified in the certificate dated 24.12.2007 and has been residing in Assam for the last several decades, her name would have surely appeared in the successive voter lists. The voter list of 1965, even if believed to be true, pertains to one Shri Paresh Chandra, whom she claims to be her husband, cannot make the petitioner an Indian citizen. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was duly served with notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, she has taken recourse to falsehood in this proceeding by making the statement that she-was not served with notice from the Tribunal. Even if the story is believed, the petitioner having miserably failed to established her case that she is Indian citizen by birth, as has been claimed in the writ petition, the inevitable conclusion is that she is a foreign national living in India illegally. Consequently, there is no question of interference with the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal as well as the Quit India Notice issued by the Superintendent of Police, Udalguri. 48. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The Superintendent Of Police, Udalguri i.e. the Respondent No. 2 is directed to take immediate steps to take the petitioner into custody and to keep her under custody till she is deported from India. W.P. (C) No. 5696 of 2002 DISTRICT GOALPARA (Arising out of Ex-parte judgment and order dated 6.3.2002 in FT Case No. 398/G/1988) 49. In this case also, the proceeding before the Tribunal (IMDT) was Ex-parte. The petitioner in spite of receipt of notice, did not appeal before the Tribunal to prove her case and consequently, the proceeding resulted in Ex-parte judgment and order dated 6/8.3.2002. In this case also, the proceeding before the Tribunal (IMDT) was Ex-parte. The petitioner in spite of receipt of notice, did not appeal before the Tribunal to prove her case and consequently, the proceeding resulted in Ex-parte judgment and order dated 6/8.3.2002. In this case also, the plea of the petitioner is that her engaged advocate, for the reasons best known to him, did not appear and represent her before the IMDT in spite of having all valid and legal documents to prove that the petitioner is truly an Indian citizen. According to the petitioner, she did not know about the fate of her case till she was communicated with the Annexure-6 order dated 25.6.2002 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon asking her to quit India as per the direction contained in the order. 50. From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that initially the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and prayed for adjournment for submission of the relevant documents, but thereafter, she remained absent throughout the proceeding. The prosecution duly established its case that the petitioner is a foreign national. Consequently, the Tribunal passed the Impugned judgment and order dated 6.3.2002. 51. I have gone through the records of the Tribunal. The order sheet reveals that notice was duly served on the petitioner. The reference was made on 30.12.1986 and the Tribunal merrily went on granting adjournments till the final judgment oil 6.3.2002. The petitioner in spite of service of notice remained absent for years together, but yet the Tribunal did not decide the issue and kept on granting adjournments-after-adjournments. It took long 14 years to answer the reference in the affirmative declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner. The petitioner having failed to establish her case by way of filing written statement and/or by adducing any evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order. The prosecution duly established its case that the petitioner is a foreign national and illegal migrant to India. 52. Independent of the proceeding before the Tribunal, I have examined the case of the petitioner, as has been projected in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, she is the daughter of late Sanatan Das, in whose favour Annexure-1 certificate of registration was issued in 1951. The registration was as citizen of India under the provisions of the citizenship Act, 1955. According to the petitioner, she is the daughter of late Sanatan Das, in whose favour Annexure-1 certificate of registration was issued in 1951. The registration was as citizen of India under the provisions of the citizenship Act, 1955. Her purported father was a refugee from the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Apart from this document, the petitioner has not produced any other document to support the claim that she is an Indian citizen. Had she been an Indian citizen, she could have easily produced the documents pertaining to the same and at least, copies of the voters list over the period. 53. In the affidavit sworn in support of the statements made in the writ petition, she has declared her age to be 51 years. If that be so, her name would have been included in the voters list for the last at least 30 years and she could have easily produced any one of them. Instead, she has referred to the purported registration certificate in the name of Sanatan Das, whom she claims to be her father. In the proceeding before the Tribunal and in the reference, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is the daughter of late Sanatan Das. On the other hand, in the statement made by her before the I/O, who conducted the enquiry, she stated that she had migrated to India on being threatened of her life there about 18 to 20 years back. The statement was made on 24.4.1986. In her statement, she also stated that her husband died in Bangladesh. It is another thing to say that she migrated to India on being threatened of her life, but it is another thing to claim that she is an Indian citizen on the basis of the purported registration certificate of 1951 standing in the name of one Shri Sanatan Das. 54. Irrespective of the aforesaid position, an important aspect of the matter is as to whether the case of the petitioner comes within the stream of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. In her statement before the I/O made on 24.4.1986 stated that she came from Bangladesh about 18/20 years back. In the reference made to the Tribunal, in the particular column, (Column 12) of the format of the I/O's report, relating to the date of entry it was stated that the petitioner came to India about 18/20 years ago. In her statement before the I/O made on 24.4.1986 stated that she came from Bangladesh about 18/20 years back. In the reference made to the Tribunal, in the particular column, (Column 12) of the format of the I/O's report, relating to the date of entry it was stated that the petitioner came to India about 18/20 years ago. It is this enquiry report which was the basis of the reference and I/O proved this report dated 6.5.1986. If the petitioner had entered into India even 18 years before the report was furnished on 6.5.1986 (statement was made on 24.4.1986), then the case of the petitioner comes within the said period of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. If that be so, the only consequence will be to get the petitioner's name registered with the prescribed Registering Authority in terms of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 with the consequence thereof. 55. The Tribunal did not address itself to the above aspect of the matter. When the 1/O's report proved in the proceeding before the Tribunal itself states that the date of entry to India of the petitioner is 18/20 years back, taking into account the same, the petitioner will be a foreigner within the excluded stream ofl.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. 56. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Tribunal stands modified to the extent that the petitioner shall now register herself with the specified Registering Authority and the necessary consequence thereof will follow. If the petitioner registers herself with the Registering Authority within 2 months from today, she maybe exempted from deportation from India. However, in the event of her failure to do so, the Superintendent of Police Bangaigaon (Respondent No. 3) who will monitor the matter, shall take her into custody in which she will remain till deported to Bangladesh from India. 57. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. WP(C) No. 1358/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA Arising out of Judgment dated 14.1.2008 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1) Barpeta in FT Case No. 112/2007) 58. The six petitioners are of one family. While the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife, the remaining petitioners are their sons. The Tribunal has answered the reference in the affirmative holding that the petitioners are foreigners and illegal migrants entering into India (Assam) after the target date i.e. 25.3.1971. The six petitioners are of one family. While the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife, the remaining petitioners are their sons. The Tribunal has answered the reference in the affirmative holding that the petitioners are foreigners and illegal migrants entering into India (Assam) after the target date i.e. 25.3.1971. Although the petitioners submitted their written statement and photocopies of some documents claiming to be Indian citizens by birth, but thereafter they remained absent in the proceeding and did not adduce any evidence to discharge their burden of proof that they are Indian citizens. Consequently, the proceeding resulted in Ex-parte judgment dated 14.1.2008. The prosecution duly established its case that the petitioners are illegal migrants to India. 59. In the writ petition, the petitioners have referred to their written statement submitted on 3.10.2007 in the Tribunal. According to the petitioners, they had engaged two advocates, namely Mr. Nazrul Islam and Danesh Ali to represent the petitioners in the proceeding before the Tribunal, but for the reasons best known to them they did not appear before the Tribunal, nor produced the documents annexed to the writ petition. They also did not advise the petitioners to adduce evidence and resultantly, the proceeding came to an end with the Ex-parte judgment. 60. The aforesaid story made out by the petitioners is simply not believable. It was their own duty to prove the documents annexed to the writ petition by producing the originals and also to adduce evidence in respect of their claim of Indian citizenship discharging the burned of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. Simply by blaming the engaged advocates, they cannot escape their such liability. I have verified the records of the Tribunal, which reveals that the petitioners duly appeared before the Tribunal on number of occasions, to be precise, 10.5.2007, 13.6.2007, 26.7.2007, 29.8.2007 and 3.10.2007. They appeared before the Tribunal either in person or through their advocate. While on 10.5.2007, 13.6.2007, 26.7.2007 and 29.8.2007, they made prayer for adjournment enabling them to file written statement, on 3.10.2007 the petitioners appeared and filed their written statement, affidavit and documents. However, thereafter, they remained absent from the proceeding as will be evident from the order sheets. They remained absent on 27.11.2007, 17.12.2007, 3.1.2008 and even on the date of judgment i.e. 14.1.2008. 61. However, thereafter, they remained absent from the proceeding as will be evident from the order sheets. They remained absent on 27.11.2007, 17.12.2007, 3.1.2008 and even on the date of judgment i.e. 14.1.2008. 61. The aforesaid revelations from the records of the Tribunal will clearly go to show that the blame on the engaged advocates is an after thought and the game plan of the petitioners is to make out a ground of challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal. There being material suppression of fact in disclosing the actual position regarding their appearance before the Tribunal, are not entitled to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that score alone. 62. If the petitioners could appear in all other dates, it is not understood as to why they could not appear on the other dates. There is no explanation to that. The written statement was filed by all the petitioner and the affidavit in support of the written statement was signed by the petitioner No. 1. It was their stand that the name of the petitioner No. 1 appeared in the voter list of 1966 and 1970 alongwith his father Mainuddin. Thereafter, the name of the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 appeared in the voter list of 1997. Copies of birth certificate in respect of petitioner No. 4, 5 and 6 all dated 10.3.1989 were also produced apart from the copy of the purported voter list of 1966 and 1970. 63. The petitioners never proved the aforesaid documents by producing the originals. The documents pertaining to post 25.3.1971 are of no consequence, unless the linkage is established to pre 1971 period in India. Even if the photocopies of the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 purportedly containing the names of the petitioner No. 1 and his father are accepted, the question necessarily arises as to why the petitioners could not produce copies of any other voter list published after 1970. In the documents pertaining to the proceeding before the Tribunal, the age of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded as 55 years. The proceeding was initiated on the basis of the requisition made by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta by his order dated 25.7.2001, in which the age of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded as 55 years. In the documents pertaining to the proceeding before the Tribunal, the age of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded as 55 years. The proceeding was initiated on the basis of the requisition made by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta by his order dated 25.7.2001, in which the age of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded as 55 years. In the statement made by the petitioner No. 1 before the Inquiry Officer, he declared his age as 55 years. The statement was made on 25.7.2001. During inquiry, the petitioners could not produce any documents in support of claim of Indian citizenship. 64. If the petitioner was 55 years of age in 2001 then in that case he could not have been 25 years of age in 1966. The age against the name Iman Ali appearing in the voter list of 1966 is 25. Further, in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 has stated that he is about 65 years old, but in the affidavit sworn in support of the statements made in the writ petition, the petitioner has declared his age as 42 years. On being pointed out such discrepancies relating the actual age of the petitioner, learned Counsel for the petitioner simply brushed aside the same as minor discrepancies. On being further asked as to why except the 1966 and 1970 voter lists, the name of the petitioner No. 1 is not to be found in any other voter lists after 1970, the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not submit anything. Likewise there was no answer as to the non-inclusion of names of all other petitioners, at least that of the petitioner No. 2 in any of the voter list. Further as against the claim of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 2 is the daughter of Tanu Mia, whose name appeared in the 1966 voter list, as per the enquiry conducted against the petitioners, the petitioner No. 2 is the daughter of Late Fazar Ali. Thus it is a case of making use of any voter list (extract only) without any authentication that the names appearing therein are actually that of the petitioners. 65. Above being the position, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Thus it is a case of making use of any voter list (extract only) without any authentication that the names appearing therein are actually that of the petitioners. 65. Above being the position, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta (respondent No. 3) is directed to take into custody all the petitioners and keep them in custody till their deported from India. WP(C) No. 1359/2008 DISTRICT SONITPUR (Arising out of Judgment dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1) Barpeta in FT Case No. 143/2007.) 66. In this case also the impugned judgment is Ex-parte. Inspite of receiving notice, the petitioners did not appear before the Tribunal to discharge their burden of proof in respect of the reference made against them. However, the plea taken in the writ petition is that the petitioners had engaged one Md. Alauddin of Barpeta Court to represent them in the proceeding before the Tribunal and also handed over the relevant documents. But he, for the reasons best known to him, did not take any step in the matter nor advised the petitioners to adduce evidence as a consequence of which the proceeding resulted in Ex-parte judgment. 67. The Tribunal, in absence of any response from the petitioners inspite of service of notice, had no option than to decide the reference Ex-parte against the petitioners. The prosecution duly established its case that the petitioners are foreigners entering into India (Assam) after 25.3.1971. 68. I have gone through the records of the Tribunal. As against the aforesaid plea of the petitioners, it appears that the petitioner No. 1, on receipt of notice duly appeared before the Tribunal on 3.8.2007 by executing Vakalatnama in favour of Advocates Alauddin Ahmed and Md. Baharul Islam about whom there is no mention in the writ petition. However, he remained absent on earlier occasions. The petitioners filed an application on 3.8.2007 praying for time to file written statement after collecting the relevant documents. The petitioner having not appeared on the subsequent date fixed, which was 20.9.2007, their engaged advocate filed an application stating that the petitioners having not appeared before the Tribunal, which might be because of some difficulties, adjournment should be granted. Accordingly, time was granted fixing the matter on 31.10.2007. The petitioner having not appeared on the subsequent date fixed, which was 20.9.2007, their engaged advocate filed an application stating that the petitioners having not appeared before the Tribunal, which might be because of some difficulties, adjournment should be granted. Accordingly, time was granted fixing the matter on 31.10.2007. However, on all subsequent dates none of the petitioners appeared with the resultant effect of the Ex-parte proceeding and the judgment. 69. From the above, it will be seen that the petitioners have taken recourse to falsehood. Contrary to the statements made in the writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 had appeared before the Tribunal on 3.8.2007 and prayed for time to file written statement under his clear signature and by executing Vakalatnama in favour of the aforementioned two advocates. The Vakalatnama was executed only by the petitioner No. 1 and the application was also filed by him only. Thus, there was no representation on behalf of the other petitioners, although notice was duly served. Because of non-appearance of the petitioners on 20.9.2007, their engaged advocate filed application for adjournment defending the petitioners. However, coming to the Writ Court, the petitioners have blamed their engaged Counsel, on their purported failure to appear. They have also not made them party respondents in this proceeding. The reason is obvious, which is falsity on the part of the petitioners. On this score alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 70. The prosecution duly established its case by proving the documents/exhibits. During the enquiry conducted by the Investigating Officer, it was established that the petitioners are Bangladeshis. Inspite of getting opportunities, the petitioners choose not to utilize the same for the obvious reasons. However, coming to the Writ Court, the petitioners have taken all sorts of pleas, which is very easy to be taken. According to the petitioner, his father Hasen Ali's name appeared in the voter list of 1966 and that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 caste their votes in 1997, their names having been included in the voter list of 1997. Even if their names were included in the 1997 voter list, same is of no consequence in absence of establishing any linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India. Even if their names were included in the 1997 voter list, same is of no consequence in absence of establishing any linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India. The Annexure-1 purported voter list of 1966 purportedly containing the name of the father of the petitioner pertains to Hasen Ali aged 56 years, while the petitioner himself described his father as Hasan Ali. In the reference also, name of the father of the petitioner was indicated as Hasan Ali and not Hasen Ali. It is not the case of the petitioner that Hasan and Hasen are one and the same person. There is also no explanation as to why, there is no other voter lists, showing the name of the father of the petitioner. 71. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the statement made is that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were not qualified to caste votes in 1966 meaning thereby, they were minors at that point of time. However, the respective age recorded in 1997 voter list on which the petitioners have placed reliance are 31 and 25 years. If the petitioner No. 2 was a minor in 1966, her age in 1997 would have been atleast 31 years and not 25 years. However, this aspect of the matter need not detain us, when the petitioners have miserably failed to establish their linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India. There is nothing to show that the person whose name appears in 1966 voter list is in fact is the father of the petitioner. Mere resemblance of name does not mean that the person concerned is the father of the petitioner No. 1. 72. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the statement made is that the petitioner No. 1 is aged about 40 years and is a citizen of India by birth. Per contra in the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that his age is 45 years. Although such discrepancies was sought to be explained as minor discrepancies, but in a matter relating to determination of one's citizenship coupled with the claim that the petitioners are Indian citizens by birth, such discrepancies coupled with the conduct of the petitioners cannot be ignored. 73. Although such discrepancies was sought to be explained as minor discrepancies, but in a matter relating to determination of one's citizenship coupled with the claim that the petitioners are Indian citizens by birth, such discrepancies coupled with the conduct of the petitioners cannot be ignored. 73. The petitioner No. 2 is his wife and the petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the sons of the petitioner No. I. Although, in paragraph 4 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were not qualified to cast votes in 1966, but they had cast their votes prior to 1997, but there is no material to establish the same. What they have enclosed is the copy of the voter list of 1997 (extract only) purportedly containing the names of petitioners No. 1 and 2. Even if, the same is held to be pertaining to the petitioners No. 1 and 2, will be of no consequence unless they establish their linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India. Mere statement of the petitioners that the name of the father of the petitioner No. 1 appeared in the voter list of 1966 is not enough. As noticed above, the name appearing in the 1966 voter list is Hasen Ali and not Hasan Ali who is stated to be the father of the petitioner No. 1. Even in 1997 voter list purportedly containing the names of the petitioners No. 1 and 2, fathers name is shown as Hasu. It is not the case of the petitioner No. 1 that his father late Hasan Ali was also known as Hasen Ali and Hasu. 74. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 3), Barpeta is directed to take into custody all the petitioners and keep them in custody till the are deported from India. WP(C) No. 336/2008 DISTRICT UDALGURI (Arising out of Judgment dated 5.10.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur in FT Case No. (DC) 97/2007.) 75. In this case, the reference was as to whether the petitioner entered into India (Assam) during the period from 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal to contest the reference. In this case, the reference was as to whether the petitioner entered into India (Assam) during the period from 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal to contest the reference. I have verified the records of the Tribunal and upon such verification, it is found that the petitioner duly received notice from the Tribunal. However, she did not respond to the proceeding and consequently, the Ex-parte judgment was passed answering the reference in the affirmative. Thus, the plea of the petitioner that she did not receive any notice from the Tribunal cannot be accepted. 76. In support of the claim of the petitioner, she has annexed the copy of the voter list of 1960 purportedly containing the name of her father. She has also enclosed the copy of the school certificate dated 12.4.1989 certifying that she read upto Class-X in Loknayak Amio Kumar Das Girls' High School, Tezpur. She has also enclosed the voter list of 1993 purportedly containing her name. Although the petitioner has contended that she is an Indian citizen by birth, but nothing has been shown to that effect. During the course of hearing, when it was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that she in fact had received notice from the Tribunal as will be evident from the record, there was no explanation in respect of the statement made in the writ petition that the petitioner never received any notice. 77. In terms of the judgment, the petitioner is to register herself with the Registering Authority as a foreigner within the stream of 1.1.66 to 25.3.1971. Opportunity is hereby granted to the petitioner to register herself as such with the Registering Authority within two months. In case of her failure to register within the target date, the consequence thereof will follow and the Superintendent of Police, Sonitpur (respondent No. 2) will deport her from India. He will ensure monitoring the case of the petitioner as regards the registration within two months. WP(C) No. 118/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA (Arising out of Judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (3) Barpeta in FT Case No. 24(III)/27.) 78. As in the earlier cases, in this case also, the challenge is to the Ex-parte judgment. He will ensure monitoring the case of the petitioner as regards the registration within two months. WP(C) No. 118/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA (Arising out of Judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (3) Barpeta in FT Case No. 24(III)/27.) 78. As in the earlier cases, in this case also, the challenge is to the Ex-parte judgment. According to the petitioner, she did not receive any notice from the Tribunal as she was away from her husband due to some dispute with him. It is her case that although her husband had received the notice, but he never informed her about the same. It is only after her return to her husband in the first part of November, 2007, she could come to know that her husband had received the notice in connection with the proceeding before the Tribunal, which in the meantime delivered the Ex-parte judgment dated 31.10.2007 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner entering into Assam after 25.3.1971. 79. In the Ex-parte proceeding the prosecution duly proved its case. It was found that the petitioner neither during the enquiry nor in the proceeding before the Tribunal could discharge her burden of proof that she is an Indian citizen. 80. I have consulted with the records of the Tribunal, which reveals that the case against the petitioner was initiated on the basis of the report furnished by the Electoral Registration Officer, which was pursuant to the direction of the Election Commission for Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll. In the report doubt was expressed against the inclusion of name of the petitioner in the draft electoral roll of 1997. Accordingly the matter was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta for determination as to whether the petitioner is an Indian citizen or not. The Superintendent of Police Barpeta duly carried out the enquiry through the Investigating Officer and such enquiry revealed that the petitioner was a foreigner entering into Assam after 25.3.1971. 81. The matter was first taken up by the IM(DT) Barpeta as per the provisions of the then existing IM(DT) Act, which has since been struck down by the Apex Court in Sonowal (1) Case. Thereafter, the matter proceeded as per the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In the writ petition the petitioner has not even obliquely stated about the proceeding before the IM(DT), in which she duly appeared on 24.1.2005 and filed Hazira. Thereafter, the matter proceeded as per the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In the writ petition the petitioner has not even obliquely stated about the proceeding before the IM(DT), in which she duly appeared on 24.1.2005 and filed Hazira. She prayed for time to collect documents enabling her to file written statement, which was duly granted. However, on all subsequent dates, she remained absent before the Tribunal as will be evident from the order sheet. Thus, it is not correct that the petitioner was unaware of the proceeding against her. 82. After scrapping of IM(DT) Act, when the matter was taken by the Foreigners Tribunal, once again notice was sent to the petitioner, which was duly received by her husband. As per the provision of Order V, Rule 15 CPC service on any adult member of the family, whether male or female is sufficient. However, coming to the Writ Court, the petitioner has taken the aforesaid plea of remaining away from her husband and non-furnishing of any intimation by her husband, which is my considered opinion cannot be accepted. If such pleas are accepted, there will be always occasion for avoidance of notice and there will be no end to litigation. The matter will also have to be viewed from the angle that the petitioner duly received notice from the IM(DT), but except once never responded to the proceeding from 10.12.2003 to 16.7.2005. She always remained absent without step except on 24.1.2005 on which date she filed Hazira and prayed for time to file written statement after collecting necessary documents. 83. Independent of the above, I have examined the case of the petitioner in the writ petition. According to her, her father's name is Abdul Sattar and his name was included in the voter list of 1965. Her name was included in the 1997 voter list. Firstly, there is no proof that the name of petitioner's father is Abdul Sattar Ali. Secondly, the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in 1997 voter list with the endorsement "D" (Doubtful) is of no consequence unless her linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India is established. Similarly, the marriage certificate of 1986 is also of no consequence. Firstly, there is no proof that the name of petitioner's father is Abdul Sattar Ali. Secondly, the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in 1997 voter list with the endorsement "D" (Doubtful) is of no consequence unless her linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India is established. Similarly, the marriage certificate of 1986 is also of no consequence. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has named her father as Late Abdus Sattar Ali and not Abdul Sattar Ali. Mere showing of any name to be that of the father of the petitioner does not conform to the requirement of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 84. In view of the above, the plea of the petitioner is not acceptable and consequently impugned judgment of the Tribunal is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 4) Barpeta shall take into custody the petitioner and she will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 32/2008 DISTRICT KARBIANGLONG (Arising out of Judgment dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Diphu in FT Case No. 196/2006 (T).) 85. The petitioners numbering 7 have been declared to be illegal migrants to India after 25.3.1971. On the basis of a reference made by the police, IM(DT) case No. 215/1989 was registered in which the petitioners duly appeared. After the decision in Sonowal (1), the proceeding was transferred to Foreigners Tribunal, which in turn registered the case as FT Case No. 196/2006. Although the petitioner No. 1 appeared before the Tribunal on several dates and prayed for time to file written statement, but remained absent after 22.1.2007, which naturally resulted in the Ex-parte judgment dated 30.10.2007. The prosecution duly established their case that the petitioners are foreigners and illegal migrants to Assam, India. 86. In the writ petition, the plea of the petitioners is that they are all citizens of India and their names are included in the 1997 voter list. Their further plea is that the petitioner No. 1 was registered as a citizen of India as per the provisions of Citizenship Act, 1955. In this connection, the petitioners have annexed Annexure-1 photocopy of purported Certificate of Registration purportedly issued by the Registration Officer, Central Zone, Agartala on 21.7.1966. Their further plea is that the petitioner No. 1 was registered as a citizen of India as per the provisions of Citizenship Act, 1955. In this connection, the petitioners have annexed Annexure-1 photocopy of purported Certificate of Registration purportedly issued by the Registration Officer, Central Zone, Agartala on 21.7.1966. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 got married with petitioner No. 2 in 1970 in Kotwali district of Tripura and they migrated to Assam in January, 1975 and since then have been residing at Bokajan (Betmal) in the district of Karbi Anglong and doing business of betel-nut at Bokajan. 87. As has been held above, the 1997 voter list is of no consequence unless the linkage is established to pre 25.3.1971 period in India. If the petitioner No. 1 was registered in 1966 as an Indian citizen, his name would have appeared in all the voter lists till 1997, which is not the case. The photocopy of the purported certificate of registration with visible overwriting is not at all believable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also did not produce the original of the same. 88. In the writ petition as in the other cases, the petitioners have blamed the advocate's clerk for not taking steps in the matter. According to the petitioners they handed over all necessary documents to the advocate's clerk but he did not take any step in the matter. Later on they came to know that the proceeding before the Tribunal resulted in the impugned Ex-parte judgment and thereafter the Superintendent of Police issued quite India notice to them. 89. I have gone through the entire records of the proceeding before the Tribunal, which was initiated on the basis of the reference made way back in 1989. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioners remained absent on the first date fixed, which was 6.2.1990. However, they appeared on 3.4.1990 and prayed for time to file written statement. Thereafter, it became a hide and seek game of the petitioners. On some dates they appeared and on some dates they did not. To mention a few, the petitioner No. 1 appeared on 14.3.1991, 4.11.1994, 4.4.1995, 12.6.1995, 14.12.1995, 12.9.1996, 24.10.1996, 10.1.1997, 21.3.1997 & 27.5.1997 with the prayer for granting time to file written statement. The Tribunal also merrily went on granting time. 90. On some dates they appeared and on some dates they did not. To mention a few, the petitioner No. 1 appeared on 14.3.1991, 4.11.1994, 4.4.1995, 12.6.1995, 14.12.1995, 12.9.1996, 24.10.1996, 10.1.1997, 21.3.1997 & 27.5.1997 with the prayer for granting time to file written statement. The Tribunal also merrily went on granting time. 90. The blame attributed to the advocate's clerk without naming him will have to be considered in the above context. What the petitioners could not do for the last about 16 years, they could do so immediately by filing the instant writ petition claiming to be Indian citizens, basis of which has been noted above. This being the conduct of the petitioners, there is nothing wrong in the Ex-parte judgment passed by the Tribunal. Even in the writ petition also, they have not been able to make out any case. The plea of inclusion of their names in the 1997 and in absence of any explanation as to why the names of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 are not in any of the voter list after 1966 till 1997, there is no manner of doubt that as per their own case, they are foreigners and illegal migrants to Assam. They have miserably failed to show anything that they are Indian citizens conforming to the requirements of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 91. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. The Superintendent of Karbi Anglong i.e. the respondent No. 4 shall the petitioners take into custody and they will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 7/2008 DISTRICT SONITPUR (Arising out of Judgment dated 9.8.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (2ND) Sonitpur in FT Case (II) No. 159/2006.) 92. In this case also, the impugned judgment is Ex-parte. It is the case of the petitioner that due to lack of communication system, she could not appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed, which was 14.6.2007. However, she engaged lawyer on 20.6.2007 and the said lawyer came to know that the next date fixed was 9.8.2007. On 9.8.2007, the said lawyer submitted a prayer petition seeking adjournment to file written statement, but the Tribunal rejected the same. Consequently, she could not establish her case that she is an Indian citizen. Hence, this writ petition. 93. I have verified the records of the Tribunal. On 9.8.2007, the said lawyer submitted a prayer petition seeking adjournment to file written statement, but the Tribunal rejected the same. Consequently, she could not establish her case that she is an Indian citizen. Hence, this writ petition. 93. I have verified the records of the Tribunal. The case against the petitioner was registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.4.2007 fixing 14.6.2007 for service report and appearance. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner remained absent on 14.6.2007 and accordingly, the matter was fixed for necessary order on 9.8.2007. On 9.8.2007 one advocate filed an application on behalf of the petitioner, but the Tribunal found that the Vakalatnama did not authorize the said advocate to appear on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the application was rejected and the matter was decided Ex-parte. The prosecution duly established their case and in absence of any rebuttal on the part of the petitioner and discharge of her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment dated 9.8.2007 answering the reference in the affirmative declaring that the petitioner is a foreigner having entered into Assam after 25.3.1971. 94. From the materials on record, including the case records of the Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner was duly served with notice. The enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in the name of Musstt Aisha Bewa, wife of Late Sabed Ali. In her statement before the Investigating Officer on 6.11.2001, she admitted having come from Bangladesh about 11/12 years back and that she was born in Bangaldesh. The Investigating Officer also examined independent witnesses in her presence, which supported the case of the prosecution. 95, On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed. However, an application was filed purportedly on her behalf on 9.8.2007 by an advocate alongwith a Vakalatnama. As noticed above, the proceeding against the petitioner was in the name of Aisha Bewa and not Aisha Begum. In the Vakalatnama name of one Isa Begum @ Isia Begum is mentioned as the executor. On the other hand in the writ petition the petitioner claims to be Musstt Ayesha Khatun @ Bewa. In such a situation the Tribunal refused to grant adjournment and proceeded to decide the matter Ex-parte against the petitioner. In the Vakalatnama name of one Isa Begum @ Isia Begum is mentioned as the executor. On the other hand in the writ petition the petitioner claims to be Musstt Ayesha Khatun @ Bewa. In such a situation the Tribunal refused to grant adjournment and proceeded to decide the matter Ex-parte against the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal did not commit anything wrong in proceeding Ex-parte against the petitioner, more particularly, when on the earlier date she remained absent without any step and on the crucial date i.e. 9.8.2007, in the Vakalatnama she was identified as Isa Begum @ Isia Begum and in the application as Asia Begum. Per contra, in the writ petition, she describes herself as Musstt Ayesha Khatun. 96. Independent of the above, what is the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition? Her case is that she is an Indian citizen by birth and her husband Late Sabed Ali died in 1997. According to her, her father is Late Asgor Ali and his name appeared in the 1966 electoral roll and so also in 1971. In the additional affidavit filed by her, she has stated that her name appeared in 1997 electoral roll as well as in 2005. According to her she became eligible to be a voter in 1997. The claim of the petitioner that her name was included in 1997 and 2005 voter list, apart from being inconsequential in absence of establishing any linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India, the two documents annexed to the writ petition in support of her claim speak of Ayesha Khatun and not Aisha Bewa in which name the enquiry was conducted and proceeding was initiated. During enquiry, she declined to disclose the name of her father as will be evident from the proceedings of the Tribunal and the documents pertaining thereto. It was never contended that she is also known as Ayesha Khatun. 97. Coming to the Writ Court, for the first time, the petitioner has contended that her actual name is Mustt. Ayesha Khatun and that she is also known as Ayesha Bewa. But in the application filed before the Tribunal, it was Ashia Begum and in the Vakalatnama it was Isa Begum and Isia Begum. She never identified herself as Ayesha Khatun and that she is also known as Ayesha Bewa. Ayesha Khatun and that she is also known as Ayesha Bewa. But in the application filed before the Tribunal, it was Ashia Begum and in the Vakalatnama it was Isa Begum and Isia Begum. She never identified herself as Ayesha Khatun and that she is also known as Ayesha Bewa. The Investigating Officer carried out the enquiry in the name of Musstt Aisha Bewa and not as @ Ayesha Khatun and recorded her statement as Musstt Aisha Bewa. There is nothing to prove that she is the daughter of Asgor Ali and Surjan Bibi. Further, Asgor Ali was only 30 years of age in the voter lost of 1966 and he became 60 years in 1971 voter list, which is unbelievable. 98. The petitioner have also not produced even the photocopies of the voter list of 1966 and/or 1971, but only the type copies of the same have been annexed to the writ petition, not to speak of producing of originals. Further in the voter list of 1997, purportedly containing the name of the petitioner, the age recorded is 34 years, but in the writ petition, the petitioner has declared her age as 40 years as on January, 2008. In the said voter list, husband's name is shown as Sahed and not Late Sabed Ali, which the petitioner claims to be her husband. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has annexed the photocopies of the purported voter list, which are of no consequence in the light of the discussions made above. The certificate issued at random by various authorities cannot prove the case of the petitioner within the purview of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 99. In view of the above, writ petition merits dismissal, which I accordingly do. The SP Sonitpur i.e. the respondent No. 4 shall take the petitioner into custody and she will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 08/008 DISTRICT BARPETA (Arising out of Judgment dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 33/2006.) 100. As in most of the cases, in this case also the impugned judgment is Ex-parte. According to the petitioner on receipt of notice, she appeared before the Tribunal on 1.11.2006 and the next date was fixed as 1.12.2006 for filing written statement. She appeared on 1.12.2006 and filed written statement. As in most of the cases, in this case also the impugned judgment is Ex-parte. According to the petitioner on receipt of notice, she appeared before the Tribunal on 1.11.2006 and the next date was fixed as 1.12.2006 for filing written statement. She appeared on 1.12.2006 and filed written statement. However, on subsequent dates, she could not appear as she was pregnant, which resulted in the impugned Ex-parte order. 101. I have perused the records of the Tribunal. It appears that the petitioner appeared on 1.11.2006 and 1.12.2006, on which date she filed written statement. On the next few dates, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. However, she again appeared on 20.6.2007, 27.7.2007, 30.8.2007 and on 5.10.2007, the petitioner prayed for another date to adduce evidence. The prayer was allowed fixing 22.10.2007. However, on that day, she neither appeared nor took any step. Even on the next date i.e. 7.11.2007, she did not appear and eventually the impugned judgment was pronounced on 22.11.2007. In the writ petition, there is no mention that on 30.8.2007, the Investigating Officer was examined and cross examined. The impression sought to be given is that the petitioner due to her pregnancy could not appear before the Tribunal after 11.1.2007 to 22.11.2007. Such a statement has been made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, which is contrary to the order sheet of the Tribunal, which reflects the presence of the petitioner till 5.10.2007. Even she cross-examined the Investigating Officer on 30.8.2007. Thus there is suppression of material fact in the writ petition and on this score alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 102. The prosecution duly proved its case. The Investigating Officer proved the related documents in his deposition. He was cross examined by the petitioner and nothing contradictory could be extracted. In the cross examination, the IO stated that the petitioner was given sufficient time to submit document, but she failed. On the basis of the n aterials on record, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment declaring the petitioner to be a Foreigner being an illegal migrant to Assam after 25.3.1971. 103. The claim made in the written statement could not be established by the petitioner as she did not adduce any evidence. On the basis of the n aterials on record, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment declaring the petitioner to be a Foreigner being an illegal migrant to Assam after 25.3.1971. 103. The claim made in the written statement could not be established by the petitioner as she did not adduce any evidence. In the written statement, her claim was that she is the daughter of Saheb Ali and her father's name appeared in the voter list of 1966 and 1970 and that she became a voter in 1997. Alongwith the written statement some documents (photocopies) were enclosed purportedly pertaining to her purported father and father-in-law, which were never proved by producing the originals and/or adducing any evidence. In her statement before the Investigating Officer, she admitted that she was born in Bangladesh at Village Pakhigaon in the district of Mymensingh and that she came to Assam from there. Independent witnesses also confirmed the position by stating that the petitioner came from Bangladesh. 104. In the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed the typed copies of the voter list of 1966 and 1970 showing the name of one Sahab Ali. While in 1996 he was 60 years, he became 54 years in 1970, which is unbelievable. In the additional affidavit filed, the petitioner has annexed the purported voter list of 1989 and 1997 to show that her name was included in the said voter list. As has been held above, such documents without any linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India, are of no consequence. Further in the written statement filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner did not state that her name was also included in 1989 voter list. 105. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta i.e. the respondent No. 4 shall take into custody the petitioner and she will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 12/008 DISTRICT BARPETA (Arising out of Judgment dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 32/2006 (B).) 106. In this case also, the impugned judgment is Ex-parte one. According to the petitioner in response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, she appeared on 1.11.2006 and prayed for adjournment, which as granted fixing 1.1 2.2006 as the next date. She appeared on 1.12.2006 and filed written statement. In this case also, the impugned judgment is Ex-parte one. According to the petitioner in response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, she appeared on 1.11.2006 and prayed for adjournment, which as granted fixing 1.1 2.2006 as the next date. She appeared on 1.12.2006 and filed written statement. She also appeared on 11.1.2007, but no witness was examined. She could not appear in all subsequent dates as her husband was suffering from illness. She also could not contact her lawyer. Later on she came to know that the judgment was delivered against her on 29.11.2007. 107. I have gone through the records of the Tribunal. On receipt of the reference, notice was issued to the petitioner fixing 1.11.2006 as the next date for written statement and documents. She appeared alongwith her advocate on 1.11.2006. On 1.12.2006, which was the next date, the petitioner submitted written statement and document. Thereafter, on certain dates no effective hearing could took place in absence of appointment of the Government pleader. On 20.6.2007, the petitioner appeared. She again appeared on the next date fixed, which was 20.7.2007. However, on three subsequent dates she did not appear. On 29.9.2007, which was the date fixed for evidence of the petitioner, she by filing petition prayed for another date, which was duly granted fixing the matter on 26.10.2007. However, the petitioner did not appear on that day and also on the subsequent dates, which resulted in Ex-parte judgment dated 29.11.2007. 108. The prosecution duly established its case and proved the exhibits/documents. However, the petitioner did not lead any evidence, although filed written statement and photocopies of some documents. The documents were never proved. She did not discharge her burden of proof in terms of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In the written statement, it was her case that she is the daughter of Late Intaz Ali and that her father-in-law Late Abdul Ali was a voter in 1966. The photocopies of the documents annexed do not through any light as regards her claim that she is an Indian citizen. Although in the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be of 36 years of age, but she could not produce any document in support of her claim that she is an Indian citizen by birth. She has also not been able to establish any linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India. Although in the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be of 36 years of age, but she could not produce any document in support of her claim that she is an Indian citizen by birth. She has also not been able to establish any linkage to pre 25.3.1971 period in India. In her statement before the Investigating Officer she admitted of having come to Assam from Bangladesh in the year 1975-76. Independent witnesses also supported the ease of the prosecution. 109. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is upheld. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta i.e. the respondent No. 4 shall take into custody the petitioner and she will remain in custody till deported from India. W.P. (C) No. 1239/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA (Arising out of judgment and order dated 6.1.2008 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 5/2005.) 110. In this case also the petitioner has stated that he did not receive any notice from the Tribunal. It is his case that the Tribunal could not have passed the impugned judgment without serving notice on him and his family members. In paragraphs 3,4 and 8, it is the categorical statement of the petitioner that he did not receive any notice. 111. According to the petitioner, he is the son of Sonaruddin and Fuljan Nessa whose name appeared in the voter list of 1966. The petitioner's name also appeared in the voter list of 1970. It is his case that he is an Indian citizen but no statement has been made that he is an Indian citizen by birth. In the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed the photocopy of the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 containing the names of Sonaruddin and Bilat Ali, son of Sonaruddin respectively. 112. I have gone through the records of the Tribunal. The reference was made on the basis of the materials collected and the enquiry report submitted by the I.O. The reference was as to whether the petitioner and his family members illegally entered into Assam/Indian from Bangladesh during the period from 1966-1971, to be precise, after 1st January, 1966 and before 25th March, 1971. 113. The prosecution duly established its case. The I.O. was examined who in his deposition approved the report submitted by him pursuant to the enquiry conducted. 113. The prosecution duly established its case. The I.O. was examined who in his deposition approved the report submitted by him pursuant to the enquiry conducted. He in his deposition stated about the enquiry report based on materials collected during the enquiry. During enquiry he had taken the statements of the petitioner and others. The petitioner as well as the other witnesses in the statement made before the I.O. stated that the petitioner came from Bangladesh during 1967-1968. 114. Thus, the question before the Tribunal was as to whether the petitioner is an illegal migrant to Assam/India. In the stream of January/1966 and March/1971 (after 01.01.1966 and before 25.03.1971). However, the Tribunal wrongly addressed itself while answering the reference holding that the petitioner entered into Assam after 25.03.1971. In fact in paragraph 4 of the judgment while making a reference to the REFERENCE, the Tribunal wrongly stated that the reference was as to whether the petitioner entered into Assam after 25.03.71, although the reference was as to whether the petitioner entered into Assam during 1966-1971. 115. The I.O. in his deposition also proved the case of the prosecution that the petitioner came to Assam from Bangladesh during 1966-1971. Thus the judgment of the Tribunal in holding that the petitioner came from Bangladesh to India after 25.03.71 is not correct. To that extent, there is wrong appreciation of the evidence. The evidence shows that the petitioner came to India during 1966 - 1971. 116. As regards the plea of the petitioner that he did not receive any notice from the Tribunal, same is absolutely false as evident from the records of the Tribunal. The petitioner in fact appeared before the Tribunal by engaging Advocate. The Vakalatnama executed on 02.03.06 by the petitioner in favour of Abdur Rahim, Advocate and the application filed by the petitioner on 02.03.06 praying for adjournment putting his clear signature therein will go to show that he in fact responded to the proceeding of the Tribunal. However, after appearance on 02.03.06, he all along remained absent before the Tribunal and resultantly the impugned judgment has been passed ex parte against him. Thus the statement made in the writ petition that he did not receive any notice and that he was unaware about the proceeding of the Tribunal is absolutely false statement to mislead the Court. On this score alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Thus the statement made in the writ petition that he did not receive any notice and that he was unaware about the proceeding of the Tribunal is absolutely false statement to mislead the Court. On this score alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 117. The dismissal of the writ petition will have the resultant effect of deportation of the petitioner and his family members from India on the basis of the impugned judgment. But when it is found that the Tribunal wrongly mentioned the reference to be one of the case of entering into Assam after 25.03.71 as against the actual reference as to whether the petitioner entered into Assam after 01.01.66 and before 25.03.71, ends of justice demands that the case of the petitioner be dealt with appropriately. Since the petitioner and his family members are found to be within the aforesaid stream, the consequence thereof is to get themselves registered with the jurisdictional authority, as a consequent of which their names in the voter list will stand deleted. 118. In view of the above, this writ petition ispartially allowed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal stands modified holding that the petitioner and his family members entered into Assam after 01.01.66 and before 25.03.71. As a consequence, the petitioner and his family member shall now register themselves with the jurisdictional Registering Authority within two months from today. In case of failure to do so, the consequence thereof, i.e. deportation from India will follow. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, i.e. the respondent No. 3, shall monitor as to whether the petitioner and his family members have registered themselves with the Registering Authority or not. In case the petitioner do not register themselves with the specified Registering Authority, they shall be taken to custody for deportation from India. W.P. (C) No. 965/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA (Arising out of judgment and order dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 79/2006.) 119. The petitioners who have been declared as foreigners entering into Assam after 25.03.71 by the impugned judgment have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court making a grievance against the same. According to the petitioners, the declaration that they are foreigners, is not tenable in law. In support of their such contention they have referred to the Electoral Roll of 1966 purportedly containing the name of the grand father of the petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners, the declaration that they are foreigners, is not tenable in law. In support of their such contention they have referred to the Electoral Roll of 1966 purportedly containing the name of the grand father of the petitioner No. 1. The name is Chikan Ali. The same name appeared in i 970 Electoral Roll also. It is the further case of the petitioners that the name of said Chikan Ali also appeared in the Electoral Rolls of 1971 and 1997 as Dhikundi. According to the petitioner said Dhikundi, also known as Srikandi, are one and the same person and his actual name is Chikan Ali. 120. Further case of the petitioner is that his name along with his father appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1997 in the particular constituency. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner claimed that he and his family members are citizens of India. 121. I have gone through the entire proceeding of the Tribunal. The prosecution duly established its case that the petitioners are foreign nationals entering into Assam after 25.03.71. Although the petitioner No. 1 examined himself as the defence witness, he could not establish anything except stating that his grant father's name appeared in the aforementioned Electoral Roll of 1996. In the cross examination he admitted that the particular name in 1966 Electoral Roll is that of Chikan Ali, but in 1997 Electoral Roll his name, was mentioned as Chikuni. The petitioner did not adduce any other evidence to prove his case that he is an Indian citizen. 1997 voter list on which the petitioner has placed reliance (Exh. B) shows that in the year 1997 his father's age was 73 years. If that be so, as has been observed by the Tribunal, his father's age in 1966 was 42 years. However, his father's name appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1997 only although in the normal circumstances his name should have been incorporated in 1966 voter list and also the subsequent voter lists up to 1997. Further, as noted by the Tribunal, the petitioner also failed to establish that his father Miachan Ali is the son of Chikan Ali. The Tribunal has also rightly noticed that there is nothing to show that 'Chikan Ali' and Srikandi is one andthe same person. 122. Further, as noted by the Tribunal, the petitioner also failed to establish that his father Miachan Ali is the son of Chikan Ali. The Tribunal has also rightly noticed that there is nothing to show that 'Chikan Ali' and Srikandi is one andthe same person. 122. The petitioner has sworn an affidavit only on 08.02.08 copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-E trying to explain the aforesaid anomalies in his own way. The affidavit being after the judgment of the Tribunal is of no consequence. The petitioner after the judgment of the Tribunal has become wiser and has annexed the photocopies of certain documents which are subsequent to the impugned judgment. It is the case of taking recourse to falsehood and making use of photocopies of the voter list taking up the names therefrom claiming the same to be of his grand father. 123. The prosecution duly established its case and no contradiction could be brought out by the petitioner. The Tribunal has discussed the matter in detail considering the entire evidence on record and it being not a case of no evidence and/or perversity of finding, no interference is called for in respect of the same exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 124. Exhibit A is the Photo copy of the voter list of 1966 in which the name of one Chikan Ali aged about 39 years finds place. If the petitioner's father was 73 years old in 1997, then as noted above, he was 42 years in 1966 and thus here is a case in which his son is elder to his father. Ext. B is petitioner's another document which is also a photo copy of 1997 voter list in which name of one Miachan Ali finds place. His father's name is indicated as Chikundi and not Chikan Ali. 125. Above are the documents on the basis of which the petitioners want to establish their case that they are citizens of India which the Tribunal has rightly rejected by its impugned judgment and order. I do not find any infirmity in the same. 126. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed and the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta (respondent No. 3) shall keep the petitioners under custody till they are deported from India. I do not find any infirmity in the same. 126. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed and the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta (respondent No. 3) shall keep the petitioners under custody till they are deported from India. W.P. (C) No. 5070/2007 DISTRICT NAGAON (Arising out of judgment and order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai in F.T. Case No.) 127. The petitioners numbering 8 have been declared as foreigners who entered into Assam after the cut off date, i.e. 25.03.1971, without any valid documents. As per the statements made in the writ petition the name of the petitioner No. 1 along with his father appeared in the voter list of 1962 and 1971 typed copy of which have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1 and 2. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 alongwith his brother paid land revenue in respect of their land from 1959 to 1961, while he was a resident under Katigorah Police Station in the District of Cachar, Assam. According the petitioners they shifted to Nagaon District and started leaving at the village Dighal Jarani (Burigaon Forest) under Police Station Dabaka in the District of Nagaon and their names appeared in the voter list of 1997 and 2005. According to the petitioners the Tribunal has wrongly held them to be foreigners coming from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. 128. The documents annexed to the writ petition are all typed copies and the writ petitioners did not produce the originals. In all the documents (Anenxures I to VI) the father's name of the petitioner is Irfan/Irphan Ali. But in Annexure-VIII notice to the petitioners issued by the Tribunal, the petitioner No. 1 has been shown as the son of Late Farjan Ali. On meticulous examination of the records of the Tribunal, it is found that in fact the Reference against the petitioner described the petitioner No. 1 as the son of Late Farjan Ali. The petitioner No. 2 has been described as Musstt. Samarta Bibi. The petitioners also received notice from the Tribunal on the basis of such description and never objected to the same. In fact, in the impugned judgment also the name of the father of the petitioner is Late Farjan Ali. The petitioner No. 2 has been described as Musstt. Samarta Bibi. The petitioners also received notice from the Tribunal on the basis of such description and never objected to the same. In fact, in the impugned judgment also the name of the father of the petitioner is Late Farjan Ali. It is not the case of the petitioner that his father was also known as Irfan/Irphan Ali. 129. The documents produced by the petitioners before the Tribunal are all contradictory. In 1971 voter list, copy of which was produced by the petitioner, his grand father's name is Akbar Ali. But in the written statement filed on 19.12.98 by the petitioner, he named his grand father as Manchar Ali. Likewise in the revenue paying receipts also, produced before the Tribunal, his grand father's name is shown as Late Manchar Ali. In the declaration made by the petitioner No. 2 on 22.04.93 in the prescribed format for incorporation of their names in the voter list, the age of the petitioner No. 1 was declared as 80 years. Further in the affidavit filed before the Tribunal as evidence in chief, the petitioner No. 1 named his grand father as Late Manchar Ali. 130. From the above, there is no manner of doubt that the name appeared in 1971 voter list which the petitioner claims to be that of the petitioner No. 1, is not correct and is falsity of truth. Although in the writ petition the petitioners have placed reliance on Annexures- 3, 4 and 5 typed copies of the purported revenue receipts, apart from the fact that the petitioners have not produced the originals, same also does not establish the case of the petitioners that they are Indian citizens. In the said receipts, the names indicated are Tasruf Ali Ashaid Ali, son of Irfan/Irphan Ali and not Fajar Ali in which name the reference was initiated by the Police and answered by the Tribunal. The documents of post 25.03.71, cannot help the case of the petitioners unless linkage is established to pre 25.03.71 period in India. Annexure-II voter list of 1971 (Typed copy) contains the name of Irfan Ali, son of Akbar Ali. On the other hand, as noticed above, the petitioner No. 1 himself claims even by filing affidavit that his grand father is late Manchar Ali. Annexure-II voter list of 1971 (Typed copy) contains the name of Irfan Ali, son of Akbar Ali. On the other hand, as noticed above, the petitioner No. 1 himself claims even by filing affidavit that his grand father is late Manchar Ali. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly held that it is the case of making use of documents including the voter list at random claiming the names appearing therein to be that of the petitioners. 131. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment dated 20.08.07 has rightly observed the aforesaid anomalies. The petitioners filed three written statements on three different occasions. They are of 25.03.92, 19.12.98 and 19.12.06. In all the written statements, as noticed by the Tribunal different stands were taken. I have also verified the said written statements and the contradictory statements stare on the face of it. In the first written statement although it was claimed by the petitioner No. 1 that his name appeared in 1962 voter list, but he could not produce the same. In the second written statement it was stated that his father Irfan Ali son of Manchar Ali was the resident of the particular place. Claiming one Tasruf Ali to be his brother, it was stated that his brother's name appeared in the voter list of 1965. However, nothing was stated as to why the name of the petitioner No. 1 did not appear in 1965 voter list. Again in the written statement filed on 19.12.96 another stand was taken that the names of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 appeared in the voter list of 1971. The position relating to 1971 voter list as has been noted above in which the name of one Irfan Ali, son of Akbar Ali appears whom the petitioner claims to be his father. Further as noted above, in the proceeding before the Tribunal, the father of the petitioner is Fajar Ali and not Irfan Ali. Further, as per own case of the petitioner Manchar Ali was the father of Irfan Ali and if that be so, Akbar Ali could not have been father of Irfan Ali. Thus, the entire case of the petitioner is based on falsehood. 132. As against the aforesaid stand of the petitioners, the prosecution duly established its case before the Tribunal. Further, as per own case of the petitioner Manchar Ali was the father of Irfan Ali and if that be so, Akbar Ali could not have been father of Irfan Ali. Thus, the entire case of the petitioner is based on falsehood. 132. As against the aforesaid stand of the petitioners, the prosecution duly established its case before the Tribunal. During the enquiry conducted by the I.O., the petitioners could not produce anything to prove their Indian citizenships. The Tribunal rightly noted the different stories projected in three different written statements. The Tribunal also noticed the discrepancies in the name of the petitioner No. 2 in the voter list of 1993 and 1997. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the petitioners cunningly produced the documents claiming the same to be relating to them, although they are not. As noticed above, the Tribunal also noticed that the petitioner produced the voter list showing his father as Irfan Ali although his father is Farjan Ali and not Irfan Ali. 133. When the case of the petitioners is passed on falsehood, that by itself establishes the factum of the petitioners being foreign nationals entering into Assam/India after 25.03.71. The Tribunal has meticulously scanned the evidences on record and i nave also gone through the same meticulously. There is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. The writ court exercising its power of judicial review cannot accept the story of the petitioners based on falsehood and even otherwise also cannot sit on appeal over the evidences on record and the findings arrived at by the fact finding authority, i.e. the Tribunal. 134. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed upholding the impugned judgment. The Superintendent of Police, i.e. the respondent No. 3, is directed to take action towards custody of the eight petitioners and to keep them in custody till they are deported from India. W.P. (C) No. 6557/2007 DISTRICT NAGAON (Arising out of judgment and order dated passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Diphu in F.T. Case No. 34/2006) 135. As in some other cases, in this case also the petitioner claims that he was not served with any notice from the Tribunal. To that effect he has made statement in paragraphs of the writ petition. As in some other cases, in this case also the petitioner claims that he was not served with any notice from the Tribunal. To that effect he has made statement in paragraphs of the writ petition. However, in paragraph-5, the statements made is that the notice was wrongly served on the petitioner since he is not the son of Late Rajendra Das, but the son of Late Bojendra Das. 136. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was born and brought up in Assam. He was born in 1958 and read upto class-DC in the particular school in the District of Nagaon in 1968. According to the petitioner, the name of his parents appeared in the voter list of 1966 photocopy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexures-4 in which two names appear are Bojendra Das and Nibasini. The petitioner has enclosed the purported school certificate issued on 05.09.07 which is much after the judgment dated 29.06.07. 137. It is on that basis the petitioner claims to be Indian citizen. There is no explanation as to why in none of the voter lists, the name of the petitioner is included although as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he is about 50 years of age. The story made out in the writ petition will have to be considered in the perspective of the proceeding before the Tribunal. 138. As noticed above, it is the definite case of the petitioner that he never received any notice from the Tribunal and that name of his father has been wrongly described as Late Rajendra Das instead of late Bojendra Das. 139. I have gone through the records of the Tribunal from which it appears that the petitioner duly received notice from the Tribunal. In the notice, his father was rightly described as Late Bojendra Das. The petitioner duly acknowledged the receipts of the same on 21.09.06. By the notice he was directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.10.06. However, he remained absent in the proceeding before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice which duly finds mention in the order sheet. 140. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on being pointed out of the above, went through the records of the Tribunal including the notice, but could not give any explanation. However, he remained absent in the proceeding before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice which duly finds mention in the order sheet. 140. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on being pointed out of the above, went through the records of the Tribunal including the notice, but could not give any explanation. The records of the Tribunal further revealed that after the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed an application under his clear signature praying for copy of the judgment. It will be pertinent to mention here that there is wide variation in the signature of the petitioner in the application filed before the Tribunal on 31.08.07 praying for copy of the judgment with that of the signatures in the Vakalatnama and the writ petition. On being pointed out, the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not furnish any satisfactory explanation. However, what is admitted is that the petitioner duly received noticed from the Tribunal; but remained absent in the proceeding which naturally resulted ex parte proceeding against him. 141. If the petitioner had chosen not to respond to the proceeding before the Tribunal, it was entirely his discretion, but coming to the writ Court, he could not have contended that he did not receive any notice from the Tribunal. In view of such suppression of material fact, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed without even entering into merit of the case. The prosecution duly established its case that the petitioner entered into Assam After 25.03.71. In the Annexure-4 voter list purportedly containing the names of the petitioner's parents, name of one Brajendra Das appears and not of Bojendra whom the petitioner claims to be his father. If the Annexure-6 school certificate which is prima facie forged one is to be believe, the petitioner was aged 10 years as on 23.12.68 and if that be so, by now he is aged about 50 years. There is no explanation as to why his name does not find place in anyone of the voter lists and also as to why his parents' name do not appear in any of the voter lists published after 1966. 142. In view above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and consequently the writ petition is dismissed both on merit as well on ground of suppression of material fact. 142. In view above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and consequently the writ petition is dismissed both on merit as well on ground of suppression of material fact. Consequently the petitioner shall be deported from India. The Superintendent of Police, i.e. the respondent No. 3, shall take immediate steps for custody of the petitioner and to took him in custody till such time he is deported from India. W.P. (C) No. 5729/2007 DISTRICT NAGAON (Arising out of judgment and order dated 24.08.07 Passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, HojaiinFT/R/34/2006) 143. In this case also the petitioners have been declared as foreigners having entered into Assam after 25.03.71. 144. In the writ petition it is the case of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner No. 1 along with her husband appeared in the voter list of 1966. They claimed to be Indian citizens having entered into Assam from Bangladesh in 1964 and since then continuously staying in Assam and their children also born in Assam. 145. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment has held that although the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 entered into Assam in 1964 but they again returned back to Bangladesh and thereafter again came to Assam after 25.03.71. 146. I have gone through the records of the Tribunal. It was the case of the petitioners that they came to Assam in the year 1964 and since then have been continuously residing in Assam. During the pendency of the proceeding, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 died. The petitioner No. 2 examined herself as DW1. She also examined DW 2 one Shri Munindra Chokraborty. Both the witnesses categorically stated that the petitioners had come from Bangladesh in 1964 and since then they have been residing in Assam. The DW 1 exhibited Exhs. Ato F documents in support of her claim of Indian citizenship. In the cross examination she could not be dislodged from her stand that she along with her husband came to Assam in 1964 from the then East Pakistan and since then has been residing in Assam. In the cross examination she also categorically stated that she had cast her vote in 1971. DW 2, whom the petitioners examined as their defence witness, categorically stated about continuous presence of the petitioners in Assam. He in his deposition stated that the petitioners were known to him since 1970. In the cross examination she also categorically stated that she had cast her vote in 1971. DW 2, whom the petitioners examined as their defence witness, categorically stated about continuous presence of the petitioners in Assam. He in his deposition stated that the petitioners were known to him since 1970. In the cross examination, he struck to his statement in chief. He denied the suggestion that the petitioners after entering into Assam in 1964 had again gone back to East Pakistan and thereafter again came to Assam after 1971. Rather he stated that the petitioners were not foreigners. 147. From the materials on record it is not discernible as to on what basis the suggestion was made that the petitioners had come to Assam in 1964 and had again gone back to East Pakistan and thereafter they came to Assam again after 1971. 148. The Tribunal in its judgment after answering all the facts in favour of the petitioners, eventually held that the petitioners entered into Assam from Bangladesh after 25.03.71. Such finding is based on the presumption that her first child could not have been born in 1982 since her marriage took place in 1964. Another finding arrived at is that the child namely Sujit whom the petitioner No. 1 projected to be her first child, is in fact not so. If is on record that her 1st child is Saniranjan and not Sujit who in fact is her second son. 149. On perusal of the evidence on record, particularly the statement of the petitioner No. 1, what has transpired is that her statement was to the effect that Sujit was born in Assam. She never stated that Sjuit was her first son. In fact notice in respect of the reference was issued to the petitioner; her husband and her four sons and one daughfer namely, Santiranjan, Sujit, Ranjit, Pinky Ranjan and Smt. Basanti. In that view of the matter there could not have been any occasion for the petitioner to claim that Sujit was her first child. 150. In fact notice in respect of the reference was issued to the petitioner; her husband and her four sons and one daughfer namely, Santiranjan, Sujit, Ranjit, Pinky Ranjan and Smt. Basanti. In that view of the matter there could not have been any occasion for the petitioner to claim that Sujit was her first child. 150. Even if there was any discrepancy in the matter of describing her offspring and as to who was elder to whom, that by itself could not have led to the inference that the petitioner entered into Assam after the target date, i.e. 25.03.71, more so, when it is the finding of the Tribunal itself that the petitioner No. 1 and her husband entered into Assam in 1964. Suggestion made to the petitioner that she alongwith her husband once again had gone to East Pakistan and then again came to Assam after 1971 was categorically denied by her which stand was also duly supported by the DW 2. 151. The prosecution also failed to establish that the petitioner in fact once again left for East Pakistan after entering into Assam in 1964 and then again came to Assam after 25.03.71. In fact, PW 1 did not make any statement to that effect. In the reference also there is no mention of such a position. Only case sought to be established against the petitioners was that they had entered into Assam after 25.03.71. 152. The Tribunal also did not disbelieve the fact of inclusion of name of the petitioner and her husband in the voter list of 1966 which was exhibited by the petitioners in the proceeding before the Tribunal. There is no discrepancies in the voter list so as to suggest that the same does not pertain to the petitioner No. 1 and her husband. Thus the factum that the petitioner and her husband entered into Assam in the year 1964 having been established in the proceeding before the Tribunal, the finding of the Tribunal that both of them entered into Assam in 1964, but again left to East Pakistan and thereafter again came to Assam after 25.03.71, being solely on the basis of the purported discrepancies in respect of the position of her second son, is totally perverse being not based on evidence at all. 153. 153. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24.08.07 passed by the Tribunal, Hojai in FT/R/34/2006 is set aside and quashed. Since the petitioners came to India in the year 1964 and since then they have been continuously staying in Assam, they cannot be branded as foreigners within the meaning of the provisions of the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act. 154. The writ petition is allowed. W.P. (C) No. 1433/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA [Arising out of judgment and order dated 29.12.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Barpeta in FT Case No. 57/ 2006(B).] 155. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid Ex-parte judgment by which she has been declared as foreigner having entered into Assam after 25.03.71. According to the petitioner her father is Samad Kha, son of late Moksad Kha and her mother's name is SukurjanNessa. She was born in 1971 and got married to one Abdul Khaleque, son of Abdul Kashem in the year 1999. Her grand parents are Moksed Kha and Maleke Khatton (both have expired). Names of her grand parents find place in the electoral roll of 1966. 156. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Annexure 2 purported certificate of Gaonburha and the electoral roll of 1997 which purportedly includes the name of her parents. 157. The Tribunal by its notice dated 19.07.06 directed the petitioner to appear on 16.09.06 to answer the allegations as to why the petitioner should not be declared as foreigner. Thereafter notice was again issued to her asking her to appear on 03.08.06. It is the stand of the petitioner that she was advised by her husband and friends not to respond to the proceeding before the Tribunal and that since she is a citizen of India by birth, things would be alright for her. However, she became alive when the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, i.e. the respondent No. 3, issued quit India notice on 13.02.08 asking her to leave India within seven days through the prescribed route. Thereafter she came to know that she has been declared as foreigner by the Tribunal by the judgment dated 29.12.07. Hence this writ petition. 158. However, she became alive when the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, i.e. the respondent No. 3, issued quit India notice on 13.02.08 asking her to leave India within seven days through the prescribed route. Thereafter she came to know that she has been declared as foreigner by the Tribunal by the judgment dated 29.12.07. Hence this writ petition. 158. The petitioner who did not respond to the proceeding before the Tribunal on the ground of being Pardanashin woman and as per the advice of her husband and friends, could very well file the writ petition once declared as foreigner. 159. I have meticulously gone through the records of the Tribunal. The case was first registered on the basis of the reference made as per the then existing IM(D)T Act. The case was registered on 24.09.03 on the basis of the reference made by the police and notice was issued. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal and thus order was passed for Ex-parte hearing. However, before hearing could took place, the judgment of the Apex Court came into force in Sonowal (1), and consequently the proceeding was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal. 160. The Foreigners Tribunal was also issued notice to the petitioner which was duly served, but on that occasion also, initially she did not respond. But she appeared on 30.10.06 and submitted the petition for time to file Written Statement. The prayer was allowed fixing the next date on 22.11.06. Thereafter, the proceeding was transferred to another Foreigners Tribunal in Barpeta which also issued notice to the petitioner. On that occasion also notice was duly served, but the petitioner did not appear. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner the proceeding resulted in Ex-parte judgment on 29.12.07. 161. In the writ petition, the stand of the petitioner is that although she received notice, but did not respond to the proceeding as per the advice of her husband and friends, but from the cords of the Tribunal, it appears that she appeared on 30.10.06. The prayer for time to file W.S. was accordingly granted. Thus, the stand of the petitioner is based on falsehood. Even prior to that she appeared before the IM(D)T and submitted W.S. on 12.07.05. All these aspects of the matter having been suppressed in the writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that score alone. 162. The prayer for time to file W.S. was accordingly granted. Thus, the stand of the petitioner is based on falsehood. Even prior to that she appeared before the IM(D)T and submitted W.S. on 12.07.05. All these aspects of the matter having been suppressed in the writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that score alone. 162. As noted above, the proceeding against the petitioner was first initiated under IM(D)T Act and the case was registered as IM(D)T Case No. 2458/03. Thereafter, on being transferred to Foreigners Tribunal No. II, the case was registered afresh as FT Case No. 148/03. The case was again transferred to another Tribunal and the same was registered as FT Case No. 56/06. As noted above, the petitioner filed Written Statement on 12.07.05 before the IM(D)T. As per the said W.S. her father's name appeared in the voter list of 1997 and as that of her grand father in 1966. However, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to prove her case. As against the statement made in the writ petition that she being a Pardahnasin lady and as per advice of her husband and friends, she did not respond to the proceeding of the Tribunal but the records of the Tribunal clearly revealed that she in fact had responded to the same by filing petitions for adjournment and thereafter by filing W.S. But thereafter she remained absent without any step. Thus, to that extent the statement made in the writ petition is totally false and has been so made only to mislead the Court. On that score alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 163. As per the provisions of the Foreigners Act, it is the bounden duty of the person concerned to discharge his burden of proof that he is an Indian citizen. In the instant case, the petitioner did not discharge such burden and has now approached this Court taking recourse to falsehood. The reference made to post 25.03.71 documents is of no help to the case of the petitioner, unless linkage is established to pre 25.03.71 period in India. The typed copies of the documents annexed to the writ petition purportedly pertaining to her parents and grand parents cannot help the case of the petitioner. The reference made to post 25.03.71 documents is of no help to the case of the petitioner, unless linkage is established to pre 25.03.71 period in India. The typed copies of the documents annexed to the writ petition purportedly pertaining to her parents and grand parents cannot help the case of the petitioner. Apart from the fact that the writ court cannot make any roving enquiry as to the veracity of such documents, the petitioner has also not produced the originals of the documents. There is no evidence to show that the documents annexed to the writ petition pertain to the petitioner. 164. The prosecution duly established its case and proved the Exhts. The case against the petitioner was initiated on the basis of the reference made by the Electoral Registration Officer to the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, when the name of the petitioner was included in the draft electoral roll published on 24.07.97. The matter was enquired into and having found a prima facie against the petitioner, the reference was made to the then IM(D)T, the proceeding of which was eventually transferred to foreigners Tribunal. Instead of the fact that the petitioner duly received notice in all the occasions, she decided to remain absent at the crucial time without any explanation and now coming to the writ Court has taken an untenable plea relating to her failure to appear before the Tribunal about which discussions have been made above. 165. As has been held by the Apex Court in Sonowal-I case followed by Sonowal-II case, it is the strict liability of the person concerned against whom proceeding is initiated under the Foreigners Act to discharge the burden of proof that he/she is an Indian citizen. The petitioner having failed to discharge such burden, has now approached the writ court taking recourse to falsehood as if the writ court is an easy dumping ground to make all sorts of pleas, no matter whether tenable or not. 166. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed upholding the impugned judgment. Consequently the petitioner shall be taken into custody by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, i.e. the respondent No. 3, and she will remain in custody till deported from India. 166. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed upholding the impugned judgment. Consequently the petitioner shall be taken into custody by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, i.e. the respondent No. 3, and she will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 6564/2007 DISTRICT BARPETA [Arising out of Judgment dated 3.10.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 302/2006 (B).] 167. The petitioner, who has been declared as foreigner being illegal migrant to Assam by the Ex-parte impugned judgment dated 3.10.2007 has filed this writ petition for setting aside the same. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner on receipt of notice from the Tribunal directing her to appear on 22.2.2007, had engaged one Mr. Maser Ali, advocate of Barpeta Bar to deal with her case. It is alleged that she handed over all the documents annexed to the writ petition to her engaged Counsel and filed an application before the Tribunal to file written statement in the case alongwith all supporting documents. It is her case that the said engaged Counsel took the responsibility to do the needful in the case and that he also stated that he would inform the petitioner in due course. 168. It is further case of the petitioner that she was surprised to find that the judgment was Ex-parte. She met her engaged Counsel to know about the case and also as to how the judgment could be Ex-parte. Her engaged advocate simply replied that he had forgotten about the case and could not take any step. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition as to what she did thereafter except the statement that she being a poor lady had to remain satisfied with the answer. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever made any complaint against the said advocate, which she could have easily done, nor the said counsel is party respondent to this proceeding. The allegations made against him is simply unbelievable and there is no manner of doubt that it is a ploy on the part of the petitioner to make out a case as has been the case in many of he writ petitions noticed above. The allegations made against him is simply unbelievable and there is no manner of doubt that it is a ploy on the part of the petitioner to make out a case as has been the case in many of he writ petitions noticed above. The petitioner has not even obliquely stated as to what she herself did to respond to the proceeding as required under the Foreigners Act, 1946. 169. I have verified the records of the Tribunal. The proceeding was first initiated as per the provisions of IM(DT) Act. Notice was served on the petitioner on 30.4.2005 and the same was recorded in the order dated 5.5.2005. On the first date after service of notice, the petitioner was absent without any step. However, the matter was adjourned to 15.6.2005 instead of proceeding Ex-parte against her. On 15.6.2005, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and prayed for time to file written statement after collecting the necessary documents. The prayer was allowed fixing 22.7.2005 as the next date. In the meantime, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sonowal (I) case, the case record was transmitted to Foreigners Tribunal, Barpetd, which issued fresh notice. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner remained absent all throughout without any step, which naturally resulted in the Ex-parte proceeding and the judgment. Thus, even otherwise also, the aforesaid story of the petitioner is a false one, on which score alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 170. In the writ petition, the statement made by the petitioner is that the Tribunal issued notice on 19.1.2007 asking her to appear on 22.2.2007 and thereafter, she met her lawyer named above. Further statement made is that she had filed an application before the Tribunal praying for time to file written statement. Such statement on the part of the petitioner is totally false, as the records of the Tribunal have revealed that after service of notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, which took cognizance of the matter on 18.1.2007 after transfer of the case from the IM(DT), the petitioner never appeared before the Tribunal. It was before the IM(DT), she had appeared only on 15.6.2005. Thus here is the case that even after service of notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner did not appear nor she engaged any counsel. It was before the IM(DT), she had appeared only on 15.6.2005. Thus here is the case that even after service of notice from the Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner did not appear nor she engaged any counsel. Thus her statement that she had engaged Counsel and filed application praying for time to file written statement after receipt of notice from the Foreigners Tribunal asking her to appear on 22.2.2007 is a false statement. 171. Even otherwise also, the story which has been projected in the writ petition cannot be accepted. The petitioner simply by engaging advocate and allegedly handing over documents to him does not discharge her burden of proof as enjoined in Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. If such type of plea as has been urged by the petitioner is accepted, there will be no end to litigation and it will be a matter of convenience for a person against whom reference is made to be foreigner. In such a sensitive matter, such plea is not acceptable and cannot be given any indulgence. 172. In the writ petition, the petitioner in support of her claim that she is an Indian citizen has referred to her alleged relationship with the persons named. She has also referred to typed copies of certain documents. Thus, what she could not do before the Tribunal by filing written statement, adducing evidence and proving the documents by producing the originals, she wants the Writ Court to believe the statements made and the typed copies of the documents filed. Even the documents purportedly pertaining to the petitioner and her husband are all post 25.3.1971. As has been held above, unless the linkage is established pertaining to pre 25.3.1971 period in India by adducing acceptable evidence, such documents are of no value towards establishing that the petitioner is an Indian citizen. Reference to some documents and that too typed copies claiming the names appearing therein to be of her relations without establishing such relationship which she could have easily done before the Tribunal cannot establish her claim that she is an Indian citizen. Even if, the said documents pertain to her relations, that by itself will not be enough to establish her Indian citizenship. 173. Even if, the said documents pertain to her relations, that by itself will not be enough to establish her Indian citizenship. 173. The typed copies of the purported voter lists annexed to the writ petition, if accepted to be true, same will negate the very mandate of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Even then, let me have a little discussion about the same. Annexure-6 is a purported voter list of 1966 containing the names of the parents of the petitioner. However, their age is not indicated under the prescribed column (column VII). In Annexure-7 purported voter list of 1970, the age recorded is 31 and 28 respectively. There is no explanation as to why there is no mention of any of the voter lists from 1970 to 1993. In 1993 voter list age recorded is 51 and 39 respectively, which is unbelievable. If the petitioners mother was 28 years old in 1970 her age could not have been 39 years in 1993. There is also no explanation as to why in Annexure-7 B certificate there is no mention of the mother of the petitioner. However, her name again appeared in 2005 voter list. 174. Above are the inherent discrepancies, even in the typed copies of the purported documents. It is one thing to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, but it is another thing to file writ petition on untenable pleas and annexing typed copies of the documents without proof of the originals. It is very easy to contend anything in the writ petition knowing it fully well that the vigour and principle relating to proving a document in a proceeding before the Tribunal, are not there in the writ petition and that a chance for favourable consideration has been taken. 175. Before the Tribunal, the prosecution duly established its case by proving the documents/exhibits, on the basis of which the reference was made. The petitioner deliberately did not appear before the Tribunal. The consequence which has followed cannot be interfered with on the basis of the grounds on which the writ petition has been filed. 176. In the writ petition, the petitioner has identified her as Hamida Khatun. She has also sworn the affidavit and signed the Vakalatnama as Hamida Khatun. The reference was also in the name of Hamida Khatun. The consequence which has followed cannot be interfered with on the basis of the grounds on which the writ petition has been filed. 176. In the writ petition, the petitioner has identified her as Hamida Khatun. She has also sworn the affidavit and signed the Vakalatnama as Hamida Khatun. The reference was also in the name of Hamida Khatun. But in the notice served from the IM(DT), the petitioner acknowledged the same under her clear signature as Hameda Khatun. In the application filed on 15.6.2005 praying for time to file written statement also she was identified as Hameda Khatun. Further, one can see with his naked eyes that the handwriting in Hameda Khatun acknowledging the notice from the Tribunal and the handwriting Miss. Hamida Khatun appearing in the Vakalatnama and the affidavit in this proceeding are not of one and the same person. 177. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and consequently, it is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta i.e. the respondent No. 2 shall take into custody the petitioner and she will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 6560/2007 DISTRICT BARPETA [Arising out of Judgment dated 3.10.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 243/2006 (B).] 178. In this case also the impugned judgment is Ex-parte one. It is the case of the petitioner that the IM(DT) issued notice dated 20.8.2004, by which the petitioner was directed on appear on 3.11.2007 and to show cause as to why she should not be declared as illegal migrants. As in the earlier case in this case also, the story of the petitioner is that she had engaged Mr. Maser Ali, advocate of Barpeta Court to take steps in the matter and that all necessary documents in support of her claim that she is an Indian citizen by birth were handed over to him. The engaged Counsel assured her of taking all necessary steps in the matter. 179. The petitioner received the quite India notice dated 31.10.2007 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta and on receipt of the same, she could come to know that the aforesaid case was decided against her Ex-parte. Her engaged Counsel was contacted, who in turn simply said that he had forgotten about the case. 179. The petitioner received the quite India notice dated 31.10.2007 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta and on receipt of the same, she could come to know that the aforesaid case was decided against her Ex-parte. Her engaged Counsel was contacted, who in turn simply said that he had forgotten about the case. As in the earlier case, in this case also the statement of the petitioner is that she being an illiterate lady, accepted the advocate's version. 180. I have gone through the records of the Tribunal, which revealed that the notice was duly served on the petitioner from the IM(DT). She duly appeared on 30.12.2004 by submitting application praying for time to file written statement. She again prayed for time on 7.2.2005,19.3.2005,5.4.2005 and 30.5.2005 before the IM(DT). On all the dates, prayer was made for granting time to file written statement. 181. After the case was transferred to Foreigners Tribunal pursuant to the judgment in Sonowal (I), the Tribunal again issued notice to the petitioner fixing 6.11.2006 as the date for written statement. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal on the said date, and as usual, prayed for time to file written statement. Thereafter, on all subsequent dates she remained absent in the proceeding and thus naturally, the Tribunal had no option than to proceed Ex-parte in the matter. The prosecutor duly established its case. 182. The reference was in the name of Farija Khatun. As per the reference, the petitioner did not declare the name of her father. The petitioner also received notice in the name of Farija Khatun. However, coming to the Writ Court, she has become Firoza Khatun @ Farija Khatun. Shenever disclosed earlier that she is also known as Firoza Khatun. The entire game plan of the petitioner is to confuse the real issue and it is a matter of convenience for her. Details of her appearance in the Tribunal as indicated above are also not disclosed in the writ petition. Her only statement is that she had engaged her counsel, who in turn did not take any steps, which is totally a false statement. Mere engagement of a counsel was not the end of the proceeding before the Tribunal. Her duty was to prove her case, which she did not and the reason is obvious. A matter relating to citizenship cannot be dealt with so lightly as the petitioner wants to. 183. Mere engagement of a counsel was not the end of the proceeding before the Tribunal. Her duty was to prove her case, which she did not and the reason is obvious. A matter relating to citizenship cannot be dealt with so lightly as the petitioner wants to. 183. As in the earlier case, the petitioner has taken all sorts of pleas to say that she is an Indian citizen by birth. The petitioner has stated about her father-in-law and mother-in-law, which cannot determine her citizenship. She has also annexed the typed copies of the electoral rolls of 1966, 1971, 1997 and 2006 purportedly containing the names of her parents. The said documents are only typed copies. Annexure-1 is an illegible copy of purported NRC containing the names of her grand parents and father. This document, on the face of it is a concocted one. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove her case before the Tribunal, which she miserably failed. The consequence has followed, which cannot be remedied exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the manner and method in which the petitioner wants to. The Annexure-6 certificate is in the name of Firoza Khatun. While the Annexure-9 voter list of 1997 pertains to Fariza Khatun. As per the age shown in the said voter list, the petitioner and her husband were of 29 and 34 years of age respectively. It is not the case of the petitioner is that their names appeared in any one of the earlier voter lists. As has been held above, any document pertaining to post 25.3.1971 period, unless the linkage is established to pre-25.3.1971 period in India is of no consequence. The petitioner cannot be allowed to change her name and to take the name of anyone she likes to establish that she is an Indian citizen. 184. Another interesting feature of the case is that, while Annexure-9 voter list of 1997 purportedly contains the name of the petitioner, which is Fariza Khatun and that of her husband Mazid Ali, the petitioner's name in the voter list of 2006 is Firoza Khatun. Further, instead of growing in age they became younger from 1997 to 2006. While their respective age in 1997 was 29 and 34 years, same became 22 and 30 years in 2006. Further, instead of growing in age they became younger from 1997 to 2006. While their respective age in 1997 was 29 and 34 years, same became 22 and 30 years in 2006. Thus it is case of picking up any name having resemblance to the name of the petitioner and then to claim Indian citizenship on that basis. 185. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta i.e. the respondent No. 2 shall take into custody the petitioner and she will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 1039/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA [Arising out of Judgment dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 216/2006 (B).] 186. As in the earlier cases, in this case also the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is an Ex-parte one. This time, the ground taken is that the petitioner met a lawyer of the Barpeta Court, who advised her to come subsequently with the required fees and told the petitioner not to worry about the case. According to the petitioner, the police had come to her and assured not to worry about the case, which forced her to think that there was no necessity to engage any lawyer. However, she received the quite India notice from which she could come to know that the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment on 29.11.2007 Ex-parte. 187. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the she could have proved her nationality (not Indian citizenship), had there been opportunity of hearing. In paragraph 11 she has stated that, if she is given an opportunity to prove her case, she will definitely be able to prove her case. In the same breath, she has stated that at least she should be allowed to register her name as foreigner as per the provisions of Section 6A(3) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 188. I have verified the case records of the Tribunal. Notice was duly served on her. Not only once, but twice. While the first notice was received by her husband, the second notice dated 19.6.2007 asking her to appear on 3.8.2007 was received by her acknowledging receipt of which she put her signature as Miss. Supia Khatun. Inspite of service of notice on both the occasions, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal and resultantly the Ex-parte proceeding and the judgment followed. Supia Khatun. Inspite of service of notice on both the occasions, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal and resultantly the Ex-parte proceeding and the judgment followed. Coming to the Writ Court, the petitioner has taken the aforesaid untenable plea. Considering the gravity of the matter, such frivolous pleas noted almost in all the cases, cannot be accepted. If the petitioner had receipt notice, which she admits, it was her duty to respond the proceeding before the Tribunal and to the disclosure the burden of proof enjoined in Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In the Tribunal, the prosecution duly established its case. 189. In the writ petition, the petitioner has signed the Vakalatnama and the affidavit, handwritings of which are quite different from that of the handwriting in the signature, which the petitioner put acknowledging receipt of notice from the Tribunal. 190. In the writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that she is an Indian citizen by birth and her father's name is Abdul Latif and her grand father is Jalil Mandal @ Jalil Boksh Mandal, whose name is recorded in the NRC of 1951. Name of her father appeared in the 1977 voter list. There is no explanation as to why, although the petitioner is 35 years of age, her name is not included in any of the voter list. There is also no explanation as to why the name of her father, which allegedly appeared in 1977 voter list is not there in any other voter lists. TheAnnexure-3 certificate is dated 23.3.2008, which is after the impugned judgment. Based on such documents, the petitioner cannot establish her case that she is an Indian citizen and that too in the Writ Court. 191. Considering all the above, the only consequence, which would follow is dismissal of the writ petition, which I accordingly do. Writ petition is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta i.e. the respondent No. 4 shall take into custody the petitioner and she will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 546/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA [Arising out of Judgment dated 29.12.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 103/2007.] 192. In this case also the impugned judgment is Ex-parte one. According to the petitioners numbering 4, on receipt of notice from the Tribunal, they filed written statement on 19.5.2007 enclosing certain documents to prove their Indian citizenship. WP(C) No. 546/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA [Arising out of Judgment dated 29.12.2007 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 103/2007.] 192. In this case also the impugned judgment is Ex-parte one. According to the petitioners numbering 4, on receipt of notice from the Tribunal, they filed written statement on 19.5.2007 enclosing certain documents to prove their Indian citizenship. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that they could not continue to attend the Tribunal after filing the written statement and that the Tribunal failed to consider the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners. In paragraph 7, it is the stand of the petitioner that the Tribunal did not give enough opportunity to adduce their evidence. 193. I have verified the records of the Tribunal. It appears that the petitioners after taking number of adjournments, submitted their written statement on 19.7.2007 enclosing therewith photocopies of 5 documents, which are - two copies each of 1966 and 1997 voter list and the marriage certificate of the petitioner No. 1 with that of the petitioner No. 2. The petitioners remained content with the written statement and the photocopies annexed unmindful of their burden to proof the same by producing the originals and adducing evidence, as if throwing some photocopies purportedly concerning them is enough to establish that they are Indian citizen by birth. In the 1966 photocopies of the voter lists names of Sukur Mamud and Abdul Gafur appear, whom the petitioner No. 1 and 2 claim to be their father and grand father respectively. In 1997 photocopies of the voter lists names of Mabbesh and Nur Mohhammed Ali, which the petitioners claim to be that of petitioner No. 1 and his father-in-law respectively. Even if it is held that Sukur Mamud and Abdul Gafur are the father and grandfather respectively of the petitioner No. 1 and 2, there is no explanation as to why their names do not appear in any one of the voter lists published thereafter. Similarly, there is also no explanation as to why the name of the petitioner does not appear in any other voter lists except 1997 and so also that of his father-in-law, except 1997. 194. The reference against the petitioner No. 1 is in the name of Nabesh Ali. The petitioner No. 2 is also described as the wife of Nabesh. Similarly, there is also no explanation as to why the name of the petitioner does not appear in any other voter lists except 1997 and so also that of his father-in-law, except 1997. 194. The reference against the petitioner No. 1 is in the name of Nabesh Ali. The petitioner No. 2 is also described as the wife of Nabesh. Likewise, the petitioners No. 3 and 4 are also described as son and daughter of Nabesh. The petitioner No. 1 also received notice from the Tribunal as Nabesh. However, in the written statement, filed in the Tribunal, he signed as Mabbesh Ali. The reason is obvious inasmuch as the document on which he had placed reliance pertain to Mabbesh and not Nabesh. In the Kobinnama, copy of which was produced before the Tribunal, the petitioner is described as Nabesh Ali and not Mabbesh Ali. Further, in the written statement filed on 19.7.2007, it is the categorical statement of the petitioners (refer paragraph 3) that in the voter list of 1997, his name was wrongly incorporated as Mabbesh Ali instead of Nabesh Ali. Thus, as per the own admission of the petitioner, he is Nabesh Ali and not Mabbesh Ali. If that be so, he could not have filed the writ petition as Mabesh Ali @ Nabesh Ali. 195. The prosecution duly established its case by proving the exhibits/documents. On the other hand, the petitioners after filing written statement remained absent in the proceeding, which naturally resulted in Ex-parte proceeding and the judgment. 196. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, consequently writ petition is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta i.e. the respondent No. 3 shall take into custody the petitioner and she will remain in custody till deported from India. WP(C) No. 1364/2008 DISTRICT BARPETA (Arising out of Judgment dated 25.1.2008 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta in FT Case No. 140/2007 and 88/2007.) 197. In this case also, the judgment against the petitioner is Ex-parte one. While the petitioner No. 1 was involved in FT Case No. 88/2007, the petitioner No. 2, his wife was involved in FT Case No. 140/2007. Both the cases were tried together and have been decided by the impugned judgment answering the reference in the affirmative. 198. In this case also, it is the case of the petitioners that they had engaged Mr. Both the cases were tried together and have been decided by the impugned judgment answering the reference in the affirmative. 198. In this case also, it is the case of the petitioners that they had engaged Mr. Nazrul Islam and Daneeh Ali of Barpeta Court to represent them in the cases before the Tribunal, but the said advocates for the reasons best known to them did not appear before the Tribunal nor produced the documents annexed to the writ petition. The fact that the petitioners duly received notice from the Tribunal has been admitted by the petitioner, but they have attributed fault on their engaged Counsel. As discussed above, such plea is. wholly untenable. Considering the nature of the proceeding before the Tribunal, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to appear in the Tribunal in the day to day proceeding. 199. I have verified the records of the Tribunal, from which it appeared that the statement made in the writ petition is totally false. The petitioners under clear signature submitted applications from time to time praying for adjournment of the proceeding. Time to time adjournments were granted. It was on the request of the petitioners No. 1 and 2, both the cases were also amalgamated and tried together. After taking adjournments for filing written statement, the petitioners remained absent on several dates and consequently, upon hearing the prosecution side, the proceeding was closed with the impugned judgment. If the petitioners even after receipt of notice decided not to file any written statement and adduce evidence, they are to thank themselves. The kind of plea taken in the writ petition, by no stretch of imagination can be accepted. They have neither made any complaint against their aforesaid two engaged Counsel nor they are party respondents in this proceeding. 200. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 is 55 years old. They had cast their vote in 1997. However, in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, they have stated that they could not collect the 1997 voter list. Annexure-8 is the voter list of 1997, in which names of Mayiyur Rahman and Arnela Khatun appear, which the petitioners No. 1 and 2 claim to be theirs. According to the petitioner, the name Motiar, which the petitioner No. 1 is was wrongly shown as Mayiyur. Annexure-8 is the voter list of 1997, in which names of Mayiyur Rahman and Arnela Khatun appear, which the petitioners No. 1 and 2 claim to be theirs. According to the petitioner, the name Motiar, which the petitioner No. 1 is was wrongly shown as Mayiyur. As pointed out above, even if this plea is accepted, a document of 1997 or inclusion of names of the petitioners in 1997 voter list, cannot establish their Indian citizenship unless linkage is shown to pre 25.3.1971 period in India. Further, the photocopies of documents annexed to the writ petition cannot establish the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the standard of proof envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is not available in the Writ Court. If the pleas of the petitioners are to be accepted, there is no need to establish the Foreigners Tribunal about which the Apex Court much emphasized in Sonowal (I) case. In the said case, the Apex Court also noticed the concept of burden of proof in the touchstone of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 201. If the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are born and brought up in India as they have claimed in the writ petition, there is no reason as to why they could not produce anything relating to the same and/or atleast adduce evidence before the Tribunal. Atleast they could have produced copies of the voter lists. What they have produced is the photocopies of 1997 voter list purportedly containing their names. As to why they could not produced any other voter lists, both pre and post 1997, the reason is obvious. 202. In the Tribunal, the prosecution duly established its case by adducing evidence and proving the documents/exhibits. As against that the petitioners did not adduce any evidence in support of their claim of Indian citizenship. As per the report furnished, both the petitioners No. 1 and 2 migrated from Bangladesh after 25.3.1971. This being the position, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 203. In the Vakalatnama, the petitioner No. 2 has neither signed nor put her thumb impression. Thus, there is also no authorization to fie the writ petition on her behalf. 204. Above being the position, there is no merit in the writ petition and consequently, it is dismissed. This being the position, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 203. In the Vakalatnama, the petitioner No. 2 has neither signed nor put her thumb impression. Thus, there is also no authorization to fie the writ petition on her behalf. 204. Above being the position, there is no merit in the writ petition and consequently, it is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta i.e. the respondent No. 3 shall take into custody the petitioner and she will remain in custody till deported from India. COMMON FEATURES IN ALL THE CASES 205. Having answered all the writ petitions in the above manner, a little discussion about the common features of all the cases may not be out of context. Barring three, in all other cases, the impugned judgments are Ex-parte. Although the petitioners have not denied service of notice from the Tribunal, but they have taken the most common and untenable plea that their engaged advocates did not take any step in the matters, as if, the petitioners had no duty to pursue the proceeding towards discharging the burden of proof of their Indian citizenship as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Tribunal Act, 1946. The Apex Court in Sonowal (I) case followed by Sonowal (II) Case has elaborately discussed this aspect of the matter. The allegations having been made against the petitioners that they are not Indian citizens, but foreign nationals, the burden was with them to prove otherwise, by adducing cogent and adequate evidence, which the petitioners failed to discharge. 206. Coming to the Writ Court, the petitioners have taken all sorts of pleas, as if the Writ Court is the dumping ground of such pleas. Since in the writ proceeding, a petitioner is entitled to place reliance on any number of documents, the petitioners have merrily annexed photocopies and typed copies of documents purportedly relating to them, but on the other hand, they deliberately avoided the proceedings initiated against them in the respective Tribunals, knowing it fully well that it would be difficult on their part to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. They want the Writ Court to relegate itself to the task, entrusted to the Tribunal under the Foreigners Act, most important of which is relating to discharge of burden of proof under Section 9 of the Act. 207. They want the Writ Court to relegate itself to the task, entrusted to the Tribunal under the Foreigners Act, most important of which is relating to discharge of burden of proof under Section 9 of the Act. 207. In all the writ petitions, the prayer is for setting aside and quashing of the impugned judgments. The writ of certiorari is issued on certain sound principles. If the repository of a power exceeds it authority, or if a power is exercised without lawful authority, a purported exercise of power may be pronounced invalid. If such a body has exceeded or acted without jurisdiction or has failed to act fairly or in accordance with the rules of natural justice or if it has committed an error of law in reaching a decision, its decision maybe set aside. However, the certiorari jurisdiction/proceeding is not a matter of course as has been sought to be invoked by the petitioners. None of the ingredients warranting exercise of certiorari jurisdiction towards setting aside and quashing the impugned judgments are present in the instant batch of writ petitions, except the cases mentioned above. MODUS OPERANDI 208. From the common features of the foundation of the writ petitions and other attending facts and circumstances, the modus operandi of the petitioners seems to somehow delay the proceedings against them. Till now, the petitioners have been successful to avoid the proceedings against them as well as their deportation from India. In the process, they have also incorporated their names in the voter lists on the basis of which they must have cast their votes. Thus, the petitioners and such other large number of Bangladeshis present in the State of Assam have a major role in electing the representatives both to the Legislative Assembly and the Parliament and consequently, in the decision making process towards building the nation. They have become the kingmakers. The dangerous effect of the cancerous growth of Bangladeshis finds mention in the report of the then Governor of Assam, which again finds mention in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) case. If this phenomenon continues, the day is not far off, when the indigenous people of Assam, both Hindus and Muslims and other religious groups will be reduced to minorities in its own land and the Bangladeshis who are freely and merrily moving around the fertile land of Assam, will intrude upon the corridors of power. If this phenomenon continues, the day is not far off, when the indigenous people of Assam, both Hindus and Muslims and other religious groups will be reduced to minorities in its own land and the Bangladeshis who are freely and merrily moving around the fertile land of Assam, will intrude upon the corridors of power. EFFECT OF DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF PROCEEDING 209. As noticed above, some of the proceedings before the Tribunal lasted even for long 20 years. Adjournments were granted, merely on asking for it, unmindful of the dangerous effect of the same. In all such cases, the Bangladeshi nationals collected more documents and even incorporate their names in the voter lists in an endeavor to consolidate their position taking advantage of the indifferent attitude of the authorities in such an important matter. 210. Even in the writ proceeding, no immediate response is shown either by the State Government or by the Central Government. Far instance, WP(C) No. 5696/2002 is pending for the last 6 years. The writ petition was entertained by order dated 10.9.2002 and the judgment of the Tribunal was stayed. Inspite of service of notice, there was no response either from the Central Government or from the State Government. Interestingly, after the stay order dated 10.9.2002 and although the matter was made returnable on 4th' October, 2002, it was never listed till 4.2.2002 i.e. for long 5 Vi years. 211. I must place on records my words of appreciation for Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate for her timely action in the matters. It is only because of her sincere efforts, the records from the Tribunal started pouring in including the records relating to the above 2002 matter, which otherwise never came for long 5 1/2 years. Without the records of the Tribunal and the assistance rendered by Ms. Chakraborty, it would have been different on my part to scrutinize the same towards adjudicating the writ petitions numbering 23. 212. The above cases have reminded me of the case of Md. Kamuluddin v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) GLT 79. In that case, the petitioner after successfully entering into Assam from Pakistan through Bangladesh not only roamed around the Indian soil, but also contested the 1996 election from No. 90 Jamunamukh Legislative Assembly Constituency. 212. The above cases have reminded me of the case of Md. Kamuluddin v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) GLT 79. In that case, the petitioner after successfully entering into Assam from Pakistan through Bangladesh not only roamed around the Indian soil, but also contested the 1996 election from No. 90 Jamunamukh Legislative Assembly Constituency. The petitioner was in possession of a passport issued by the Pakistan Government, on the strength of which he traveled to Dacca in Bangladesh from where sneaked to Assam and even contested the election. This can happen only in Assam. MATTER NEEDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION AND ACTION 213. India was divided into two countries and three parts curving out Pakistan comprising of West Pakistan and East Pakistan. Later on East Pakistan became Bangladesh. The line of demarcation, which was drawn by Sir Cyril Radcliff, the most brilliant Barrister in England, over the then Punjab and Bengal including this part of the country dividing India and Pakistan, although, saw the resultant fencing of the Punjab border, unfortunately in this part of the country, such fencing even after 61 years of independence is a distant dream. Influx from Bangladesh is a regular phenomenon with the resultant contributory factor behind the outbreak of insurgency in the State. The illegal migration not only affects the people of Assam but have more dangerous dimension of greatly undermining our national security, about which mention has been made in Sonowal (I) Case. 214. It will be most appropriate to refer here to the then Governor of Assam Lt. General S.K. Sinha (Retired) former Deputy Chief of Army Staff report dated 8.11.1998, which was prepared after thorough inspection of boarder areas and districts, discussion with Indian Ambassador in Bangladesh and talks with political leaders. The report finds exclusive mention in Sonowal-1 Case. Some of the observations in the report are as follows: 1. The unabated influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into Assam and the consequent perceptible change in the demographic pattern of the State has been a matter of grave concern. It threatens to reduce the Assamese people to a minority in their own State, as happened in Tripura and Sikkim. 2. Illegal migration into Assam was the core issue behind the Assam student movement. It was also the prime contributory factor behind the outbreak of insurgency in the State. It threatens to reduce the Assamese people to a minority in their own State, as happened in Tripura and Sikkim. 2. Illegal migration into Assam was the core issue behind the Assam student movement. It was also the prime contributory factor behind the outbreak of insurgency in the State. Yet we have not made much tangible progress in dealing with this al important issue. 3. There is a tendency to view illegal migration into Assam as a regional matter affecting only the people of Assam. It's more dangerous dimensions of greatly undermining our national security, is ignored. The long cherished design of Greater East Pakistan/Bangladesh, making inroads into strategic land link of Assam with the rest of the country, can lead to severing the entire land mass of the North East, with all its rich resources from the rest of the country. They will have disastrous strategic and economic consequences. MIGRATION INTO ASSAM HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 7. Failure to get Assam included in East Pakistan in 1947 remained a source of abiding resentment in that country. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in his book "Myths of Independence" wrote - "It would be a wrong that Kashmir is the only dispute that divides India and Pakistan, though undoubtedly the most significant. One at least is nearly as important as the Kashmir dispute, that of Assam and some district of India adjacent to East Pakistan. To these Pakistan has very good claims". Even a pro-India leader like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in his book "Eastern Pakistan; its population & economics" observed, "Because Eastern Pakistan must have sufficient land for its expansion and because Assam has abundant forests and mineral resources, coal, petroleum etc., Eastern Pakistan must include Assam to be financially and economically strong. CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS 10. Besides the above consideration, there are other contributory factors facilitating Infiltration from Bangladesh. Ethnic, linguistic and religious commonality between the illegal migrants and many people on our side of the border enables them to find shelter. It makes their detection difficult. Some political parties have been encouraging and even helping illegal migration with a view to building vote banks. These immigrants are hardworking and are prepared to work as cheap labour and domestic help for lower remuneration than the local people. This makes them acceptable. Moreover, with corruption being all pervasive, corrupt officials are bribed to provide help. Recently, a racket has been busted in Lakhimpur. These immigrants are hardworking and are prepared to work as cheap labour and domestic help for lower remuneration than the local people. This makes them acceptable. Moreover, with corruption being all pervasive, corrupt officials are bribed to provide help. Recently, a racket has been busted in Lakhimpur. Four individuals were found to Have been providing forged citizenship certificates and other documents to illegal migrants for the last 14 years. ILLEGAL MIGRANTS 15. ...Mr. Mulan described this as invasion using' military terminology which in present geostrategic context, underscores the strategic aspect of the problem. It is unfortunately that to this day, after half a century of independence, we have chosen to remain virtually oblivious to the grave danger to our national security arising from this unabated influx of illegal migrants. Third, the prophecy that except the Sibsagar district, the Assamese people will not find themselves at home in Assam, is well on its way to becoming true as reflected by the present demographic pattern of Assam. 16. Mr. Inderjit Gupta the then Home Minister of India stated in the Parliament on May 6, 1997 that there were 10 million illegal migrants residing in India. Quoting Home Ministry/Intelligence Bureau sources, the August 10 1998 issue of India Today bas given the breakdown of these illegal in grants by States: West Bengal 5.4 million Assam 4 million Tripura 0.8 million Bihar 0.5 million Maharashtra 0.5 million Rajasthan 0.5 million Delhi 0.3 million Making a total of 10.83 million Community wise growth Assam India Hindus Muslims Hindus Muslims (1) 1951-1961 33.71 38.35 20.29 25.61 (2) 1961-1971 37.17 30.99 23.72 30.85 (3) 1971-1991 41.89 77.42 48.38 55.04 EXPLANATORY NOTE ...In the case of Muslims the Assam growth rate was much higher than the all India rate. This suggests continued large scale Muslim illegal migration into Assam. (d) Muslim population in Assam ha shown a rise 77.42 percent in 1991 from what it was in 1971. Hindu population has risen by nearly 41.89 percent in this period. (e) Muslim population in Assam has risen from 24.68 percent in 1951 to 28.42 percent in 1999. As per 1991 census four districts (Dhubri, Goalpara, Barpeta and Hailakandi) have become Muslim majority district. Two more districts (Nagaon and Karimganj) should have become so by 1998 and one district Morigaon is fast approaching this position. 20. (e) Muslim population in Assam has risen from 24.68 percent in 1951 to 28.42 percent in 1999. As per 1991 census four districts (Dhubri, Goalpara, Barpeta and Hailakandi) have become Muslim majority district. Two more districts (Nagaon and Karimganj) should have become so by 1998 and one district Morigaon is fast approaching this position. 20. The growth of Muslim population has been emphasized in the previous paragraph to indicate the extent of illegal migration from Bangladesh to Assam because as stated earlier, the illegal migrants coming into India after 1971 have been almost exclusively Muslims. 21. Pakistan's ISI has been active in Bangladesh supporting militant movement in Assam. Muslim militant organization have mushroomed in Assam and there are reports of some 50 Assamese Muslim youths having gone for training to Afghanistan and Kashmir. 215. In the report, the dangerous consequence of large scale illegal migration from Bangladesh for the people of Assam in particular and for the nation as a whole was emphasized. It was observed that mistaken and misconceived notion of "secularism" should not be allowed to come on the way of doing so. 216. What is required is the strong political will unmindful of political gains derived from the presence of illegal migrants. It is the national interest and not the individual or political interest of any particular party, which must prevail under all circumstances. A clear message has been given by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sottowal's case to be carried out into action both the State and the Union Government. The present batch of writ petitions is only pointer to the concern expressed by the Apex Court. 217. It is no longer a secret or in the domain of 'doubt' that illegal Bangladeshis have intruded every nook and corner of Assam, including forest land. In some of the cases, the petitioners themselves stated before the police during investigation that they were occupying and living in Govt., and forest land. If reports are to be believed, they have even intruded upon the most sacred Xattra lands. Very often, they are protected by extending the protective lands of 'secularism' branding them to be Indian "minorities' in Assam. A strong political will to free Assam from illegal Bangladeshi is the need of the hour coupled with public activism in that direction. 218. If reports are to be believed, they have even intruded upon the most sacred Xattra lands. Very often, they are protected by extending the protective lands of 'secularism' branding them to be Indian "minorities' in Assam. A strong political will to free Assam from illegal Bangladeshi is the need of the hour coupled with public activism in that direction. 218. As noticed by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal-I case, the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and their presence and unabated influx has changed the demographic character of the region and the indigenous people of Assam have already been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts. In this connection the Apex Court has observed thus: 38. This being the situation there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing "external aggression and internal disturbance" on account of large scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals. It, therefore, becomes the duty of Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution. Having regard to this constitutional mandate, the question arises whether the Union of India has taken any measures for that purpose. 219. A submission was made, particularly in WP(C) No. 32/2008 that the petitioners being Hindus and even if they have come from Bangladesh, same being the result of oppression meted out to them there, they must not be branded as illegal migrants and that having regard to the theme of partition of India, they should be regarded as refugees from Bangladesh. Suffice is to say that the laws relating to foreigners do not make any distinction in that line. The issue raised is purely a political one and this Court is not the forum to comment upon the same, it being not in its scope, ambit and jurisdiction. 220. As has been observed by the Apex Court in Sonowal-(I) case, the foremost duty of the Central Government is to defend the boarders of the country, prevent any trespass and make the life of the citizen safe and secure. The State Government is also equally responsible to take effective measures to stop unabated influx of Bangladeshi nationals to Assam threatening the very existence of the indigenous people in their own State. The State Government is also equally responsible to take effective measures to stop unabated influx of Bangladeshi nationals to Assam threatening the very existence of the indigenous people in their own State. Neither the Central Government nor the State Government can disown their such solemn responsibilities, they being the protectors of the citizens. Arthashastra lays emphasis on the King's responsibility to protect his State, both from internal and external aggression. 221. In Chapter VII, Manusmriti explains the importance of king or the Ruler and declares that king is God in human form as it is he who gives full protection to the people against external enemies and internal wrongdoers and looks after their welfare. In Chapter VIII, Verse 335-336 Manusmriti enjoins the following The king should punish the offender whether he/she is father, teacher, mother, friend, relative, wife, son or a priest. If king himself is guilty, he is liable to be punished one thousand times more than the quantum of penalty prescribed for an ordinary man. DIRECTIONS 222. While answering the writ petitions in the above manner, the following directions are issued: (I) The respective Superintendents of Police shall furnish report as to the implementation of the directions contained in this judgment towards deportation of the petitioners found to have entered into Assam after 25.3.1971 and have been declared foreigners. (II) The Government of Assam, in the Home Department and the Director General of Police, Assam shall furnish report about the action plan towards detection and deportation of foreign nationals from Assam. (III) The Government of Assam in the related department shall furnish report as to the action plan and me time limit within which the names of illegal voters find place in various voter lists would be deleted. (IV) All the reports be furnished on or before 30.9.2008, on which date all the cases shall be listed again. 223. The Registry while furnishing copies of this judgment to Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam forthwith, shall also send the copies to the respective Superintendent of Police and other authorities immediately, for their necessary follow up action. The records of the respective Tribunals shall be sent down immediately. Bring this judgment and order to the notice of the Deputy Registrar (J).