JUDGMENT : AM Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. I H Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. J Payeng, learned counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border Areas, 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. On being referred by the Superintendent of Police (Border) of Tinsukia, FT Case No. 79/D/06 in the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Tinsukia was registered. Upon non-appearance of the petitioner, the reference was decided ex-parte by the order dated 15.07.2015. 3. The petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who entered India after 25.03.1971. In paragraph-2 of the order of the Tribunal, it was recorded that notice was issued to the petitioner and the said notice was properly served at her address. 4. But after going through the report of the process server, it is seen that the process server having found the petitioner in her address, the notice was signed by her brother Natil Ahmed. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that the said Natil Ahmed is a person unknown to the petitioner. Secondly, it does not make any sense as to why the petitioner being present in her address, one Natil Ahmed, who is unknown to her, received the notice. The manner in which the notice was served does not satisfy the requirement of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 5. In this regard, we have taken note of the provisions of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 which, interalia, provides the procedure as to how the notice has to be served on the proceedee. The provisions of Rule 3(5)(f) specifically provides that if the proceedee has changed the place of residence or place of work, without intimation to the investigating agency, the process server shall affix a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the proceedee ordinarily resides or last resided or reportedly resided or personally worked for gain or carries on business, and, shall return the original to the Foreigners Tribunal from which it was issued. As already indicated, the report of the process server does not indicate that upon the petitioner not being found at the required address, the notice thereof had been affixed on the outer door or some conspicuous place of the house where the proceedee resides or last resided. In view of the procedural aberration of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, we are of the view that the manner in which the notice was deemed to be served was in violation of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 6. Considering the above, we are of the view that the order dated 15.07.2015 of the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Tinsukia in FT Case No. 79/D/06 is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Upon the order of the Tribunal being set aside, the matter now stands remanded to the Foreigners Tribunal, Tinsukia for an appropriate adjudication of the claim of the petitioner. For the purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the Foreigners Tribunal, Tinsukia on 11.02.2019 along with the copy of the written statement. Upon her appearance, the Tribunal shall decide the reference within a period of 60 (sixty) days thereafter. It is also provided that in the event the petitioner does not appear or does not cooperate with the Tribunal in arriving at its adjudication, the Tribunal would be at liberty to pass any appropriate orders as may be permissible under the law. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated hereinabove.