Amitava Roy, J;— This appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 23.9.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 4171/2008. Thereby, the appellant/ writ petitioner?s assailment of the judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 of the learned Foreigners? Tribunal, Diphu, Karbi Anglong in F.T. Case No. 60/06 (corresponding to IMDT Case No. 88/2005) as well as the order dated 16.6.2007 of the Superintendent of Police (B), Karbi Anglong, Diphu, Assam requiring him to quit the territorial limits of India, he having been adjudged to a foreigner under the Foreigners? Act, 1946 (for short, hereinafter referred to as „the Act?), had been negated. 2. While admitting this appeal on 4.11.2009, this Court had stayed the operation of the judgment and order impugned herein. The records reveal that the appellant is presently lodged in Jail. 3. We have heard Mr D Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr PS Deka, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. 4. The factual backdrop being indispensable, the pleadings of the parties in bare essentials have to be recited. The appellant, as alluded hereinabove, had approached this Court with the aforementioned writ proceeding claiming himself to be a citizen of India by birth and a permanent resident of Dakhin Bidyanagar, P.S. Hojai in the district of Nagaon. According to him, his father late Upendra Kundu along with other members of the family had shifted from Village-Kailanbag under P.S. Sarojdiga within Dhaka district of Bangladesh to Chakirtoop, Nagaon Town under Nagaon P.S. in the year 1959, whereafter, he (appellant?s father) had shifted his residence to Dakhin Bidyanagar under Hojai P.S. in the same district. 5. The appellant has asserted that his father had been registered as a citizen of India under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by the then Election Officer, Nagaon and that he (appellant) was born to him thereafter in India. He has claimed that he has been residing with his family consisting of his wife, aged mother and a host of dependents at Dakhin Bidyanagar, Hojai, Nagaon. He has averred that in order to sustain himself and his family he has been doing some business and for that purpose he has been temporarily residing at Satgaon Bazar Basti under Baithalangso P.S., District- Karbi Anglong, Assam. While denying that he is a foreigner and had allegedly migrated from Bangladesh to Assam after 25.3.1971 as declared by the Foreigners? He has averred that in order to sustain himself and his family he has been doing some business and for that purpose he has been temporarily residing at Satgaon Bazar Basti under Baithalangso P.S., District- Karbi Anglong, Assam. While denying that he is a foreigner and had allegedly migrated from Bangladesh to Assam after 25.3.1971 as declared by the Foreigners? Tribunal, Diphu (for short, hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal?) in the above case, the appellant has maintained that he is a citizen of India by birth, he having been born to his father Late Upendra Kundu who had registered himself under the Citizenship Act, 1955 for which he had been granted a certificate dated 7.11.59 to the said effect by the competent authority. He also claimed that being a citizen of India, his name is included in the relevant electoral rolls disclosing inter alia the name of his father to be Upendra Kundu. Reference has also been made by him to the trade licence issued to him by the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council for conducting his business at Satgaon Bazar Basti under Baithalangso P.S. as well as to a certificate issued by the President of the concerned Gaon Panchayat testifying his citizenship of the country. 6. In the writ proceeding the appellant, thus, not only impeached the determination of the learned Tribunal to be erroneous on the face of the records, he repudiated the same to be violative of the principles of natural justice as well. His cavil inter alia in this regard is that the learned Tribunal had adjudged him to be a foreigner on the basis of the report submitted by the jurisdictional Sub Inspector of Police and his statement in the proceedings before it without, however, furnishing a copy of the said document to him so as to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing therein. He asserted on oath that though on receiving the notice of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal he had entered appearance and had filed his written statement denying the allegations and had also submitted the documents in support of his stand, his learned counsel entrusted with the responsibility of appropriately securing his defence had omitted to do so to his immense prejudice. 7. 7. The respondent No.1 in his counter affidavits principally dealt with the procedure adopted for deportation of Bangladeshi Nationals who had illegally migrated to India on or after 25.3.1971 as laid down under the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules and Orders framed thereunder and referred as well to the power and privilege of the State Government and Union Territory Administration to identify, detect and deport any such foreigner. Vis-à-vis the appellant, the answering respondent stated that according to the information provided by the State Government, he had been handed over by the concerned authorities to the Border Security Force (for short, hereinafter referred to as „the BSF?) on 10.8.2008 on the culmination of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal whereafter as per the report received from the BSF he had been expatriated to Bangladesh in presence of the State police on the very same date. 8. The respondent No.2 while endorsing the decision of the learned of Tribunal and dismissing as well the impugnment of its findings affirmed that following the closure of the proceedings before it (Tribunal) a Quit India Notice was served on the appellant by the Superintendent of Police (B), Karbi Anglong, Diphu. 9. In his counter, the respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police (B), Karbi Anglong, Diphu asserted that the appellant after having been declared to be a foreigner by the learned Tribunal, he was served with a Quit India Notice dated 16.6.2007 whereafter he was deported to Bangladesh on 10.8.2008. While supporting the conclusions of the learned Tribunal, the answering respondent iterated that the appellant had himself confessed to be not a citizen of India with no valid document to confirm his citizenship of this country. According to this respondent, he after having been deported to Bangladesh on 10.8.2008, had surreptitiously reentered the Indian limits whereafter he approached this Court. That the appellant was thereafter taken into custody has been mentioned as well. 10. During the pendency of the writ proceeding, an official enquiry was conducted to verify the authenticity of the documents filed by the appellant along with the writ petition on the conclusion whereof the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon by his communication No. NMM 45/2009/41 dated 13.8.2009 submitted a report with the Principal Secretary, Govt. 10. During the pendency of the writ proceeding, an official enquiry was conducted to verify the authenticity of the documents filed by the appellant along with the writ petition on the conclusion whereof the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon by his communication No. NMM 45/2009/41 dated 13.8.2009 submitted a report with the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Political (B) Department, Dispur, The latter authority thereafter by his affidavit brought this document along with others on record for the scrutiny of this Court. Additional pleadings were filed on behalf of the appellant by his wife Smt. Dipali Kundu wherein she vouched on solemn affirmation the validity of the Certificate of Registration dated 7.11.59 reiterating that the same had been issued by the competent authority. She averred that at the relevant point of time the Election Officer, Nagaon was empowered to issue such certificate and that the verification report dated 13.8.2009 to the extent it was contrary to this assertion was clearly untenable and of no consequence. She thereby brought on record, amongst others, a photocopy of the certified copy of the voters? list of 21, Baithalangshu Legislative Assembly Constituency of the year 1970 containing the name of Upendra Ch. Kundu, the father of the appellant. In the present appeal as well the above document as well as a photocopy of the certified copy of the voters? list of 1993 for 91, Hojai Legislative Assembly Constituency has been brought on record by the appellant. 11. Mr Mazumdar has strenuously argued that the learned Single Judge having omitted from consideration the Certificate of Registration granted in favour of the appellant?s father under the Citizenship Act, 1955 as well as the relevant voters? list and other documents on record in support of his claim of citizenship of India, the impugned judgment and order is manifestly illegal and is, thus, liable to be interfered with. While contending that the learned Tribunal had fallen in same error in failing to take note of the Certificate of Registration in adjudging the appellant to be a foreigner by exclusively relying on the report of the jurisdictional Sub Inspector of Police as well as his statement, the learned counsel has urged that the findings of the learned Single Judge based on the contents of the report dated 13.8.2009 are also obviously incorrect warranting an immediate intervention of this Bench in the interest of justice. Mr. Mr. Mazumdar submitted that the original of the Certificate of Registration had been seized by the territorial Superintendent of Police as would be evident from the pleadings and, therefore, the appellant?s case based on the photocopy thereof brought on record ought not to have been disbelieved. 12. The learned Single Judge had wrongly rejected the case of the appellant by disregarding the factual aspect of shifting of the place of residence of the appellant?s father as well as the voters? list of 1970 reflecting his name, he insisted. While contending that any person facing an accusation of being a foreigner under the Act is even otherwise entitled in law to defend himself/ herself by adducing all evidence at his/ her disposal to prove his/ her citizenship of India, Mr Mazumdar argued that even assuming without admitting that even if the only reservation against the Certificate of Registration i.e. want of competence of the Election Officer, Nagaon is accorded any weightage, the said document even then by all means establishes unassailably the physical presence of the appellant?s father in India in the year 1950 and, thus, his enlistment in the voters? list of 1970 brings him within the stream of persons entering the State of Assam during 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. The learned counsel maintained that in such an eventuality as well, the appellant cannot be branded as a foreigner and, thus, the impugned judgment and order as well as the decision of the learned Tribunal ought to be interfered with and the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal with a direction to it to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to him to adduce evidence—oral and documentary in support of his claim of citizenship of India. 13. Mr Deka, in reply, has argued that the learned Single Judge having duly examined all relevant aspects, both factual and legal bearing on the issue, no interference as sought for ought to be made. The learned State counsel argued that the report dated 13.8.2009 following a detailed enquiry into the relevant facts revealed that the Certificate of Registration dated 7.11.59 was unreliable. As the name of the appellant?s father did not appear in the voters? list during the relevant period thereafter, the photocopy of the voters? list of 1970 obtained in the year 2009 only casts a serious doubt on the authenticity thereof, he pleaded. As the name of the appellant?s father did not appear in the voters? list during the relevant period thereafter, the photocopy of the voters? list of 1970 obtained in the year 2009 only casts a serious doubt on the authenticity thereof, he pleaded. Mr Deka has, thus, urged that having regard to the scope of scrutiny in the instant appeal, no interference in the face of the materials on record is called for. 14. We have lent our anxious consideration to the pleadings as well as the documents on record. The arguments advanced have also been taken note of. Evidently, the appellant?s case is founded on the Certificate of Registration dated 7.11.59 issued by the Election Officer, Nagaon under Rule 10 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 evidencing the registration of his father Sri Upendra Kundu to be a citizen of India under the provisions of Section 5(1)(a)/(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The name of the appellant?s grandfather is recorded therein to be Late Hara Nath Kundu. The appellant?s father is shown to be aged 55 years on the date of issue of the certificate with his then address at Village- Chakirtoop under P.S. Nagaon. His place of birth is reflected as Village-Kailanbag, P.S. Sarojdiga in district of Dhaca, Bangladesh. The certificate bears the signature of the appellant?s father as well. 15. Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 along with Rule 14 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 being relevant, are extracted below:- “5. His place of birth is reflected as Village-Kailanbag, P.S. Sarojdiga in district of Dhaca, Bangladesh. The certificate bears the signature of the appellant?s father as well. 15. Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 along with Rule 14 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 being relevant, are extracted below:- “5. Citizenship by registration—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and such other conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the Central Government may, on an application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person not being an illegal migrant who is not already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or of any other provision of this Act if he belongs to any of the following categories, namely— (a) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration; (b) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India; (c) a person who is married to a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration; (d) minor children of persons who are citizens of India; (e) a person of full age and capacity whose parents are registered as citizens of India under clause (a) or this sub-section or sub-section (1) of section 6; (f) a person of full age and capacity who, or either of his parents, was earlier citizen of independent India, and has been residing in India for one year immediately before making an application for registration; (g) a person of full age and capacity who has been registered as an overseas citizen of India for five years, and who has been residing in India for one year before making an application for registration.” Rule-14 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009— “14. Grant of certificate of registration—(1) Every person who is registered as a citizen of India under clause (a), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of sub-section (1) of section 5 shall be issued a certificate of registration in Form X signed by an officer not below the rank of Under Secretary to the Government of India. Grant of certificate of registration—(1) Every person who is registered as a citizen of India under clause (a), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of sub-section (1) of section 5 shall be issued a certificate of registration in Form X signed by an officer not below the rank of Under Secretary to the Government of India. (2) Every person who is registered as a citizen of India under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 5 shall be issued a certificate of registration in Form XI signed by an officer not below the rank of Under Secretary to the Government of India. (3) A copy of the certificate of registration issued under this rule, shall be preserved for the purposes of record by the issuing authority.”. 16. Having regard to the fact that the appellant?s assertion of his birth in India after the issuance of the Certificate of Registration has not been categorically denied by the respondents, this document, if proved to be valid, would be of decisive significance vis-à-vis the issue of his citizenship of the country. This is more so in the face of other documents on record including the photocopy of the voters? list of the different Assam Legislative Assembly Constituencies reflecting the name of his father as well as his name therein as voters. 17. A bare reading of the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal would reveal that the appellant on receiving the notice of the proceeding before it had submitted his written statement along with photocopies of two documents claiming himself to be a citizen of India by birth. He, however, failed to examine himself on oath in support of his pleadings and also prove the said documents. For his absence in the later part of the proceedings the same was held ex parte and the learned Tribunal eventually by acting upon the report of the Enquiry Officer and his evidence returned a finding that the appellant was a foreigner who had come to Assam from the „specified territory? within the meaning of the Citizenship Act, 1955 i.e. Bangladesh after 25.3.1971 without any permit or travel document. within the meaning of the Citizenship Act, 1955 i.e. Bangladesh after 25.3.1971 without any permit or travel document. Though the respondents have claimed that after this determination the appellant was served with the Quit India Notice and finally deported from the Indian shores whereafter he surfaced again to approach this Court, no plea having been taken in the instant appeal questioning the maintainability of the writ proceeding on this ground, we do not intend to dilate thereon. Suffice it to state that this contention on behalf of the respondents notwithstanding the learned Single Judge noticeably had decided the lis on merits. 18. It is, thus, obvious that the learned Tribunal had not scrutinized the probative worth of the documents, more particularly of the photocopy of the Certificate of Registration laid before it by the appellant. Significantly, the appellant at the first instance projected his claim of citizenship of India by birth relying on this Certificate. He, however, admittedly omitted to prove the same contending that the learned Advocate entrusted with the brief had failed him. 19. The letter dated 13.8.2009 of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon conveying the findings in the official enquiry into the Certificate of Registration dated 7.11.59 and other incidental factual aspects demonstrates the following:- i) There is nothing on record to confirm as to whether the Election Officer, Nagaon was a competent authority to issue the certificate at the relevant point of time. ii) The records containing the counterfoils of the Certificate of Registration as available in the office revealed that the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Deputy Commissioner of the District and the Sub Deputy Collector of Revenue Circles had been issuing such Certificate of Registration at various times in 1956, 1962-63, 1967, 1969 etc. iii) The genuineness of the Certificate could not be properly ascertained. iv) The name of Upendra Kundu or his family members do not appear in the electoral rolls of Chakirtup Village for 1966 and 71 as a voter. v) In the relevant part of NRC 1951, as available, his name is not found. vi) As per the voters? list of 1993 for Hojai Legislative Assembly Constituency in which the appellant is enrolled, his age is shown as 29 years signifying that the year of his birth was sometime around 1963-64 when his father in terms of the Certificate of Registration would be aged 63/64 years. 20. vi) As per the voters? list of 1993 for Hojai Legislative Assembly Constituency in which the appellant is enrolled, his age is shown as 29 years signifying that the year of his birth was sometime around 1963-64 when his father in terms of the Certificate of Registration would be aged 63/64 years. 20. The learned Single Judge jettisoned the Certificate of Registration observing as hereinbelow:- i) There are handwritten figures including the date thereof on the document. ii) Though the document bears the signature of the Election Officer, Nagaon as well as his seal, it does not inspire confidence. iii) The document is in the name of Upendra Kundu and not in that of the appellant. iv) As disclosed by the report dated 13.8.2009, the counterfoils of such certificates of registration are available in the office of the Deputy Commissioner indicating that those were being issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Addl. Deputy Commissioner and Sub Deputy Collectors of the Revenue Circles pertaining to the period in question and not by any other officer. v) Having regard to the age recorded in the Certificate of Registration, if the document is authentic, the name of the appellant and his family members ought to have appeared in the relevant electoral rolls prepared thereafter but verification of the electoral rolls from the period 1966 to 1971 reveal that the name of Upendra Kundu or his family members were not included therein. vi) The name of Upendra Kundu is not available in the relevant part of the NRC 1951. 21. Apart from the above, the learned Single Judge observed that as disclosed by the writ petition if the appellant?s age was 43 years in the year 2008 he could have produced a number of voters? list containing his name but he instead did so only for the year 1993. This voters? list as well reflects the name of the village as Hojai Nagar J Ward No.01 and not Dakhin Bidyanagar. The learned Single Judge was critical of the declaration form appended to the writ petition containing the names of the appellant?s father and other family members including him observing that if he (appellant?s father) was already registered as an Indian citizen it was incomprehensible as to why further declaration was to be made to include the names of his family members as voters. It was concluded as well that even if the Certificate of Registration was accepted to be a genuine document, the same being only in the name of the father of the appellant without indicating his family members, it was of no avail to him (appellant). 22. A plain perusal of the report dated 13.8.2009 demonstrates absence of any categorical finding of the authority concerned against the validity of the Certificate of Registration dated 7.11.59. Though absence of the relevant records has been cited for such inability, the fact remains that the concerned respondent authorities did abstain from unreservedly repudiating this document to be illegal and without any authority of law. The report further discloses that the Certificate of Registration issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Addl. Deputy Commissioner and Sub Deputy Collector of the Revenue Circles referred to therein were not for the year in which the Certificate of Registration as claimed by the appellant had been issued to his father i.e. 1959. Noticeably, the counterfoils of these certificates of registration are in the same form as that of the one dated 7.11.59 stated to have been issued in favour of the appellant?s father. Handwritten figures do appear as well on these counterfoils. 23. In the face of the pleaded averment of the appellant that his father after 1959 had shifted his residence to Dakhin Bidyanagar under Hojai P.S., Nagaon, Assam and that for the purpose of his business the appellant used to temporarily reside at Satgaon Bazar Basti, Karbi Anglong, the disclosure in the report dated 13.8.2009 that his (appellant?s father) name do not appear in the electoral rolls for Chakirtoop Village for the year 1966 and 1971 does not per se, in our view, demolish the case of the appellant based on the Certificate of Registration dated 7.11.59. The statement in the report that even in the relevant part of the NRC of 1959 the name of the appellant?s father was not found apart from being cagey also per se may not annihilate the Certificate of Registration, the responsibility of entering the name of the certificate holder in the NRC being that of the concerned authority. Not only the enquiring authority, as it is apparent, did leave out of consideration, amongst others, the voters? Not only the enquiring authority, as it is apparent, did leave out of consideration, amongst others, the voters? list of 1970 which shows the name of the appellant?s father as a voter of 21, Baithalangshu Legislative Assembly Constituency, the observation that at the time of the claimed birth of the appellant he (appellant?s father) was aged 63/64 years is not of any definitive significance. The declaration form (Annexure-D series to the writ petition) reflects the age of the appellant as on 1.4.89 to be 24 years indicating thereby that his year of birth is 1965. The photocopy of the voters? list of 1993 and 2005 disclose his age to be 29 and 40 years respectively. These voters? lists are successively for No. 91 Hojai Constituency. The age of the appellant as reflected in the aforementioned document, thus, prima facie accord with the year of his birth i.e. 1965 (approximately). This is consequently compatible with his pleaded stand that he was born to Upendra Kundu in India after the Certificate of Registration dated 7.11.59 was issued to the latter. 24. That at the time of disposal of the writ petition the photocopy of the Certificate of Registration aforementioned as well as the voters? list of 1970 containing the name of the appellant?s father as a voter were available on record is not disputed. The impugned judgment and order does not refer to the voters list of 1970. Instead, the finding contained in the report dated 13.8.2009 that the name of the appellant?s father does not appear in any of the voters? list between 1966 and 1971 of Village Chakirtup was taken note of to negate the challenge to the determination made by the learned Tribunal. It cannot be gain said that the Certificate of Registration dated 7.11.59 and the voters? list on record did have a vital bearing on the debate subject to the proof as well as validity/ authenticity thereof. 25. On a scrutiny of the various aspects recited hereinabove and the import of the documents relied upon by the appellant, we are of the unhesitant opinion that a more indepth judicial scrutiny thereof is an imperative necessity so as to obviate the possibility of injustice on either side. 25. On a scrutiny of the various aspects recited hereinabove and the import of the documents relied upon by the appellant, we are of the unhesitant opinion that a more indepth judicial scrutiny thereof is an imperative necessity so as to obviate the possibility of injustice on either side. Having regard to the disastrous consequences that would befall the appellant, though we do not approve his failure to fully contest the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, we are inclined in the facts and circumstances to offer him one opportunity of adducing evidence—oral and documentary in support of his defence to the allegation of being a foreigner under the Act as well as the Rules and Orders framed thereunder. 26. Though his abstention from the proceedings before the learned Tribunal is otherwise an inexcusable act of indiscretion, on a consideration of the practical realities of contemporary existence and individual comprehensions contingent on one?s academic accomplishment and family background, we consider it expedient to accord this indulgence to the appellant in the greater interest of a balanced justice. 27. As a corollary, the impugned judgment and order as well as the decision of the learned Foreigners? Tribunal, Diphu, Karbi Anglong in F.T. Case No. 66/2006 (corresponding to IMDT Case No. 88/2005) are interfered with. The matter stands remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide the issue afresh by granting due opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence— oral and documentary. The appellant, needless to say, would cooperate with the proceedings. 28. Though resultantly all orders consequent upon the decisions interfered with would otherwise be rendered non-est, having regard to the limited purpose of remand, we are not inclined to order the release of the appellant from jail pending the determination entrusted to it. It would, however, be open to the learned Tribunal to consider any prayer for his release either on bail or otherwise, if made before it, in accordance with law, if it considers it appropriate to do so in order to facilitate an effective and meaningful defence in the proceeding and subject to such conditions as it may consider fit and proper. 29. The learned Tribunal is requested to complete the adjudication within a period of three months herefrom. The Registry would forthwith dispatch a copy of this judgment and order to the learned Tribunal at Diphu so as to enable it to take immediate steps. 30. 29. The learned Tribunal is requested to complete the adjudication within a period of three months herefrom. The Registry would forthwith dispatch a copy of this judgment and order to the learned Tribunal at Diphu so as to enable it to take immediate steps. 30. The appeal, thus, stands partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. _____________