JUDGMENT : AM Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. A. Kalita, learned standing counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border matters, Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the authorities under the NRC as well as Ms. G Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2005 of the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Case No. F.T.200/2003 has approached this court by way of this writ petition. By the order dated 05.12.2005, the Foreigner Tribunal at Dibrugarh arrived at a conclusion that as the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed for her appearance, therefore, the burden of proof of the petitioner remained undischarged. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had declared the petitioner to be a foreigner by providing that she may register her name in the Foreigners Registration Office within a period of two months therefrom. 3. As the said order was passed ex-parte, it is the claim of the petitioner that she had no knowledge of the order passed against her and as such could not get herself registered with the Foreigners Registration Office. In the circumstance, this writ petition has been preferred on the grievance that as the petitioner had not registered herself with the Foreigners Registration Office, therefore, in the voters’ list the status of the petitioner is indicated as “D”. 4. We have perused the report of the process server. The report indicates that the person indicated in the notice having been found, his signature was taken and notice served. It is taken note of that the notice was addressed in the name of Begum Nirha Begum, but the notice was served on Md. Machuk Ahmed. An impression has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he process server had informed the husband of the petitioner that he is the proceedee and therefore required to appear before the Tribunal and to that extent MR. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the language used in the report of the process server. 5. Without going to the contention raised by Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the language used in the report of the process server. 5. Without going to the contention raised by Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner on its own merit, we are of the view that as the notice was not properly served on the proceedee, the order dated 05.12.2005 in FT Case No.200/2003 before the Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dibrugarh is unsustainable. Accordingly, the said order of 05.12.2005 is set aside. 6. Upon the order of the Tribunal being set aside, the matter now stands remanded to the Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dibrugarh for an appropriate adjudication of the reference against the petitioner. For the purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the Foreigners Tribunal, Tinsukia on 11.02.2019 along with a copy of the written statement to be filed. It is further provided that in the event, the petitioner fails to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal on the aforementioned date or does not cooperate with the Tribunal, the Tribunal would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as per law. 7. It is also provided that the Tribunal shall give its opinion on the reference against the petitioner within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of appearance of the petitioner. 8. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.