JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. Heard Mr. S Islam, 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 Affairs, 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), Nagaon, FT(D) Case No. 437 of 2015 was registered in the Foreigners Tribunal No. 10, Nagaon at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai. 3. In the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted a written statement and took the stand that the father of the petitioner is Ajgar Ali Matbar, son of Haynor whose name appeared in the voters list of 1965 of village-Dhingbari Pathar, Mouza-Juria of Nagaon district. Stand was also taken that the name of Ajgar Ali also appeared in the voters list of 1971 of village-Dhingbari Pathar. The petitioner further took the stand that after her marriage with Abdul Karim, son of Ahed Ali, she had been residing at village-Nahargaon, police Station-Doboka. 4. To substantiate her stand, the petitioner exhibited the voters list of 1965 of village-Dhingbari Pathar, Police Station-Rupohihat, Mouza-Juria which has the name of Md. Ajgar Ali Matdar, son of Hainor, aged 52 years at serial No. 288. The voters list of 1971 of village-Dhingbari Pathar was also exhibited showing the name of Ajgar Ali, son of Hamdor, aged 55 years, the voters list of 1975 of village-Dhingbari Pathar containing the name of Ajgar Ali, son of Hamdor, aged 55 years, the voters list of 1977 of village-Dhingbari Pathar also containing the name of Ajgar Ali, son of Haidor, aged 55 years. 5. Apart from the discrepancy that the age of Ajgar Ali remained at 55 years right from 1965 upto 1977, otherwise we have nothing on record as to why Ajgar Ali, son of Hamdor/Haidor is not to be construed to be an Indian citizen. But there is nothing on record which may indicate a link with Ajgar Ali of the voters' lists of 1965, 1970, 1971, 1975, 1977 of village Dhingbari Pathar with that of the Ajgor Ali, the father of the petititoner. 6. The petitioner exhibited certain certificates from the Secretary, Dhingbari Chapari Gaon Panchayat. But there is nothing on record which may indicate a link with Ajgar Ali of the voters' lists of 1965, 1970, 1971, 1975, 1977 of village Dhingbari Pathar with that of the Ajgor Ali, the father of the petititoner. 6. The petitioner exhibited certain certificates from the Secretary, Dhingbari Chapari Gaon Panchayat. But again as required under the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupjan Bibi v. Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579 , the person certifying the certificate had not been examined either to authenticate the certificate or to authenticate the contents of the certificate. Accordingly, the certificate of the Gaon Panchayat cannot be made to be the basis to conclude that the father of the petitioner is Ajgar Ali of Dhingbari Pathar, whose name appears in the voters list of 1965. 7. Apart from the above, except for the own statement of the petitioner, we have nothing on record which would indicate that Ajgar Ali of the voters list of 1965 of village Dhingbari Pathar is the father of the petitioner. From the said point of view, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2017 in the Foreigners Tribunal No. 10, Nagaon at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in connection with FT(D) Case No. 437 of 2015 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who entered Assam/India after 25.03.1971. 8. But we have also taken note of that Exhibit-13 is a document in the nature of ration card issued by the Dhing Chapari Co-Operative Stores Limited on 22.05.1944, which stands in the name of Ajgar Ali. The petitioner claims that the Ajgar Ali referred in the Exhibit-13 in the ration card is her father. Exhibit-13, ration card was exhibited by the petitioner through her additional evidence rendered on 13.12.2016. The said evidence rendered by the petitioner merely mentions about the Exhibit-13 ration card but does not say anything as to how the document of the year 1944 in the name of Ajgar Ali came in the possession of the petitioner so as to enable her to exhibit the same. 9. A question would naturally arise that if the petitioner was legitimately in the possession of a document of the year 1944 standing in the name of Ajgar Ali, as to by what means the petitioner came in possession of the same. 9. A question would naturally arise that if the petitioner was legitimately in the possession of a document of the year 1944 standing in the name of Ajgar Ali, as to by what means the petitioner came in possession of the same. Accordingly, we are of the view that as Ehxibit-13 is on record, it would also be in the interest of justice for the State respondents to cross-examine the petitioner and find out as to how Exhibit-13 came into her possession. 10. We have also taken note of that the age of Ajgar Ali whom the petitioner relies upon to be her father was aged about 52 years as per the voters list of 1965 but again he remained 55 years upto all successive voters lists right upto the voters list of 1977. Further, the petitioner also relies upon certain entries in the NRC of 1951 which shows the age of Ajgar Ali Matbar, son of Haidor Ali of village-Dhingbari Pathar to be 15 years. If Ajgar Ali was 15 years as on 1951, he ought to have been 8 years in 1944 when the purported Exhibit-13 ration card was issued in the name of Ajgar Ali. 11. The Tribunal while allowing the State to cross-examine the petitioner shall also examine the aforesaid aspect of there being a discrepancy in the age of Ajgar Ali and arrive at a correct conclusion as regards his age. Upon doing so, Tribunal may arrive at its own conclusion and if the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal goes in favour of the petitioner, a reasoned order be passed and the same shall supersede the earlier order dated 25.07.2017. In the event, Tribunal arrive at a conclusion against the petitioner, it may again pass a reasoned order, which by itself would be additional reasons to retain the order dated 25.07.2017. 12. As the petitioner is in detention, Superintendent of Police (Border) Nagaon shall do the needful to enable the petitioner to remain present before the tribunal on 20.03.2019 for further proceeding as indicated above. Upon the petitioner's appearance before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider the same within 15 days thereafter and give its final consideration. 13. In passing its order, the Tribunal may also take into account the other materials which are already available on record. Upon the petitioner's appearance before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider the same within 15 days thereafter and give its final consideration. 13. In passing its order, the Tribunal may also take into account the other materials which are already available on record. It is clarified that by requiring the Tribunal to do the needful as indicated, we have not interfered with the order of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2017 at this stage. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above.