JUDGMENT : A.M.Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. AAR Karim, 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 Dhubri, a reference was made against the petitioner under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983. Thereafter, the IM(D)T Act on being declared ultra-vires by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the reference made against the petitioner was transferred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.8, Dhubri and was re-numbered as FT Case No. 8/50/GKJ/2017. By the ex-parte order dated 26.07.2017, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who entered India after 25.03.1971. 3. This writ petition has been preferred against the ex-parte order on the ground that notice was not duly served on the petitioner as required under the law. 4. We have perused the report of the process server which indicates that upon the petitioner being not found in the given address, the notice was served on another person who according to the process server is the maternal uncle of the petitioner. 5. In this regard, we have taken note of the provisions of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 which, inter alia, 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. 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. We are of the view that in the manner, the notice was served as indicated by the process server, the same is not in conformity with the requirement of the provision of Rule 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 26.07.2017 of the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.8, Dhubri in FT Case No. 8/50/GKJ/2017. For the purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the Foreigners’ Tribunal, No.8, Dhubri on 06.03.2019 along with the copy of the written statement to be filed. Upon his 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 co-operate with the Tribunal, the Tribunal would be at liberty to pass any appropriate order (s) as may be permissible under the law. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated herein above.