JUDGMENT : A.K. GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned special standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6; Ms. G. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel, Election Commission of India, appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel, NRC appearing for respondent No.4. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, in F.T Case No.672/BAKSA/2016, whereby, the petitioner was held to have entered into India illegally on or after 25.03.1971 from the specified territory. 3. Drawing attention of the Court to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order, Mr. Biswas submits that it is manifestly clear therefrom that the counsel for the petitioner was not heard when the impugned judgment was rendered and therefore, on this short ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed and the matter is liable to be directed to be re-heard and disposed of by the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that as the petitioner was not heard, the impugned order may be set aside and the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur be directed to hear the counsel for the parties and then to pass a fresh order on the basis of materials on record in accordance with law. 5. In paragraphs 9 and 10, the Tribunal observed as follows:- “……………………. (9) My predecessor had heard the arguments of the Proceedee/ Opposite Party and fixed on 22-2-2018 for Opinion. (10) Though after assuming office I was supposed to re-hear the reference in appropriate cases but to avoid multiplicity and time consumption I proceed to render my opinion in this case on the basis of the available materials on record which however, is treated as incomplete and the scope of re-hearing may be availed by this Tribunal as and when felt necessary. ………………………..” 6. From the above, it is evident that the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, who passed the impugned order, did not hear the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner to avoid multiplicity and to avoid consumption of time. The approach of the learned Tribunal, to say the least is wholly wrong as it militates against the basic tenets of principles of natural justice. 7. The approach of the learned Tribunal, to say the least is wholly wrong as it militates against the basic tenets of principles of natural justice. 7. Long back, in the case of Gullapalli Nageswar Rao and others Vs. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 , the Supreme Court had observed that personal hearing enables the authority concerned to clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. It was further laid down that if one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. 8. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in our mind to set aside the impugned order, which we, accordingly, do. The matter stands remitted back to the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, Tamulpur, to decide the case in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The petitioner will appear before the Tribunal on 18.09.2018. It is made clear that no further notice shall be issued to the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible. 9. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.