JUDGEMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23/03/2012 of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (1st) Morigaon, passed in FT(D) Case No. 669/2007 (Police Reference D/N Case No. 1406/1997) (State of Assam Vs. Naresh Dutta). By the said order, he has been declared to be a foreigner who illegally entered into India after 25-03-1971. 2. I have heard Mr. D. N. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel representing Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI and Ms. K.M. Talukdar, learned State Counsel. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. 3. As discussed in the impugned order, in support of the case of the petitioner that he is an Indian citizen, he submitted the following documents :- I) Trade licence No. 42 standing in the name of his father Narendra Chandra Dutta dated 23/08/1960 (Ext. Ka). II) School Certificates (Ext. Kha and Ga). III) Service confirmation order of the Deputy Commissioner (Ext. Cha). IV) Voter list of 1997 and 2011 (Ext. Ja and Jha). V) Voter list of 1989 (Ext. Chha). VI) Appointment Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj (Ext. Ongo). 4. While the Tribunal in its impugned order has admitted the fact that the petitioner is a State Govt. servant, however, has held that at the time of selection, perhaps the citizenship was not verified and that the application submitted by the petitioner was accepted on the basis of the declaration that he was a citizen of India. 5. Although the Tribunal has admitted the trade licence No. 42 (Ext. Ka) issued in favour of the father of the petitioner on 23/08/1960 but held that since it was valid upto 31/03/1961, the said document was not acceptable. If a trade licence was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner on 23/08/1960, irrespective of expiry of the validity on 31/03/1961, it remained a fact that the father of the petitioner was not an illegal migrant of post 1966. 6. It appears that the Tribunal has found fault in the purported discrepancy in the name of the father of the petitioner, inasmuch as, in some of the documents, he has been described as Narendra Chandra Dutta while in some others as Narendra Kumar Dutta. In some others, he was described as Narendra Dutta. 6. It appears that the Tribunal has found fault in the purported discrepancy in the name of the father of the petitioner, inasmuch as, in some of the documents, he has been described as Narendra Chandra Dutta while in some others as Narendra Kumar Dutta. In some others, he was described as Narendra Dutta. However, there is no dispute that Narendra Chandra Dutta, Narendra Kumar Dutta and Narendra Dutta is one and the same person. 7. The petitioner being a Govt. employee, a fact which the Tribunal itself has admitted, the matter cannot be treated lightly. In support of the claim of the petitioner that he is an Indian citizen, amongst others, he had also produced Ext. Kha School Certificate and the Ext. Ga HSLC certificate of 2007 and 1982 respectively. In Ext. Kha School certificate, his age as of April, 1974 is described as 9 years 10 months and if that be so, his year of birth was 1965/1966. Similarly, in the HJSLC certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, his age as on 01/03/1982 was recorded as 17 years 11 months and if that be so, his year of birth would be 1964/1965. The cut-off year being 1966, the petitioner could very well prove his Indian citizenship. 8. Before the Tribunal, it was not the case of the prosecution that Narendra Chandra Dutta, Narendra Kumar Dutta and Narendra Dutta were different persons rather the exhibited documents would go to show that all the names pertains to the father of the petitioner. The difference is only in respect of the middle name i.e. Kumar and Chandra. Otherwise, the fact that the name of the father of the petitioner is Narendra Dutta is the admitted fact. 9. Above being the position, I have no hesitation to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 23/03/2012 passed in FT(D) Case No. 669/2007 (Police Reference D/N Case No. 1406/1997) (State of Assam Vs. Naresh Dutta). 10. Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Registry shall send down the case records to the learned Tribunal below along with a copy of this judgement and order.