JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Ms. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AI Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India and Mr. A. Kalita, 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 (B), Morigaon, F.T.(C) Case No. 234/10 was registered in Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Morigaon against one Nabir Hussain and his other family members. As per the report of inquiry, Farida Begum was shown to be the sister of Nabir Hussain and Rafikul Ali was shown to be the brother of Nabir Hussain. 3. Accordingly, the notice was issued to Nabir Hussain, Farida Begum and Rafikul Ali. In the proceedings, the investigating officer had deposed that the inquiry was made against Nabir Hussain, Farida Begum, Rafikul Ali and Maijan Begum. 4. By the order dated 16.11.2010 of the aforementioned persons namely, Nabir Hussain, Farida Begum, Rafikul Ali and Maijan Begum were declared to be a foreigners who entered India after 25.03.1971, against which the present writ petition has been preferred. It is stated that after the opinion being rendered by the Tribunal, Nabir Hussain had died and in the circumstance the opinion rendered against Farida Begum, Rafikul Ali and Maijan Begum is required to be adjudicated in this proceeding. 5. We have perused the records of the reference. The record reveals that the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon as per memo No. III/2-6(a)/603/2001 dated 29.09.2001 against only Nabir Hussain, in other words, there was no reference being made against Farida Begum, Rafikul Ali and Maijan Begum. The law in this respect has been settled in Sudhir Kumar Roy v. Union of India, wherein it has been held that if a reference is made against a particular person and he is declared to be a foreigner, it cannot itself lead to a conclusion that the other family members are also a foreigners. 6. The law in this respect has been settled in Sudhir Kumar Roy v. Union of India, wherein it has been held that if a reference is made against a particular person and he is declared to be a foreigner, it cannot itself lead to a conclusion that the other family members are also a foreigners. 6. The declaration of one member of the family to be a foreigner on being referred may be a good case for the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon, also to refer the other family members, but without such reference merely, on the basis of another members being declared to be a foreigner, the others also cannot be held to be foreigners. 7. Accordingly, the opinion rendered by the order dated 16.11.2010 in F.T.(C) Case No. 234/10 of the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Morigaon that the petitioners namely, Farida Begum, Rafikul Ali and Maijan Begum also to be a foreigners is set aside. As the declaration has been set aside on the technical reason, it would be open for the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon to refer the said three persons if so otherwise advised. 8. It is stated that the petitioner, Rafikul Ali is presently in the detention camp at Tezpur. As the order of 16.11.2010 in respect of Rafikul Ali is also being interfered, accordingly, Rafikul Ali son of Lokman Ali shall be released from detention forthwith subject to submission of two surety bonds from two prominent persons from his village or a Government official to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon as well as of the Central Jail, Tezpur viz. In-charge of the detention camp to ensure his continuous presence before the authority as and when required. 9. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.