JUDGMENT : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India for the respondent No. 1; Ms. A. Verma, learned special counsel, FT, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No. 5 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the learned Tribunal dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Goalpara, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 4601/G/2011 by which the petitioner was declared an illegal migrant of post 1971 stream from Bangladesh. 3. We have perused the records received from the Tribunal. 4. We have noted that the said order was passed as the petitioner remained absent. Perusal of the order dated 05.02.2013 shows that the petitioner after appearing on 03.07.2012 filed the written statement on 27.07.2012 along with certain xerox copies of voters' lists of 1979, 1985, 1993 and 1997, as well as a copy of the Relief Eligibility Certificate (REC). As observed by the learned Tribunal in the said written statement, the petitioner claimed that he had come to India in the year 1964. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal and in the meantime, the amendment had been effected in the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which requires for completion of the proceeding before the Tribunal within 60 days. Learned Tribunal observed that the plea taken by the petitioner of not being able to appear on the ground of illness having been suffering from malaria was not credible and accordingly, proceeded to dispose of the matter in absence of the petitioner. 5. While the conclusion of the proceeding within 60 days cannot be said to be technically incorrect in view of the specific provision of the Act, however, the fact remains that there could be various factors and situations because of which the proceeding cannot be completed within 60 days. 6. 5. While the conclusion of the proceeding within 60 days cannot be said to be technically incorrect in view of the specific provision of the Act, however, the fact remains that there could be various factors and situations because of which the proceeding cannot be completed within 60 days. 6. Further, in the present case, what we have noted is that the petitioner had taken a specific plea that the petitioner's father had entered India on 24th Magh, 1370 as per the document i.e. the Relief Eligibility Certificate, in which the authorities had mentioned the date of arrival in India as 24th Magh, 1370. Magh is a lunar month in India and the aforesaid date roughly corresponds to 6th February, 1964 of the English calendar. Thus, it indicates that the petitioner's father had entered India before 25.03.1971. 7. There is another document filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which is an order issued by the office of the Officer on Special Duty, Relief and Rehabilitation Refugee Camp, Matia, on 27.06.1964, where the name of the petitioner's father Ratindra Hajong is shown along with other family members, which would show that the petitioner's father and other relatives had entered India before 27.06.1964. However, the learned Tribunal wrongly appreciated the documents on record and made the observation that in the first page of Relief Eligibility Certificate at S. No. 5 the date of arrival in India has been shown to be 24th Magh, 1370 by misreading it as 24th Magh, 1970 and observed that the petitioner had given different dates of entry in India, one in 1970 and another in 1964. We have closely observed the certificate on record in which the date of arrival has been recorded as 24th Magh, 1370 and not 1970. 24th Magh, 1370 is the recording in terms of Indian calendar and not as per English calendar which roughly corresponds to February, 1964. Since the other document dated 27.06.1964 clearly mentions the names of Ratindra Hajong along with other family members, it is quite evident that the learned Tribunal has misread the documents. 8. In addition to that Mr. 24th Magh, 1370 is the recording in terms of Indian calendar and not as per English calendar which roughly corresponds to February, 1964. Since the other document dated 27.06.1964 clearly mentions the names of Ratindra Hajong along with other family members, it is quite evident that the learned Tribunal has misread the documents. 8. In addition to that Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's mother Saibalik Hajong has been declared to be a foreigner, but who had entered into Assam along with her husband i.e. the father of the petitioner in 1964 i.e. before 01.01.1966 due to atrocity committed against them in East Pakistan and took shelter in Assam and Government of India allowed them to stay in Matia Camp No. 9 and since then they have been staying there. Thus, it was held that they were Indian citizens by virtue of registration and accordingly, it was held that the aforesaid Saibalik Hajong, whom the petitioner claims to be his mother is an Indian citizen by virtue of registration. As a consequence, the petitioner can be considered to be an Indian. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to produce the opinion dated 01.07.2016 rendered by the Foreigners' Tribunal-5th, Goalpara, in F.T. Case No. FT/5/50/MA/2016 in favour of Saibalik Hajong, wife of Rathindra Hajong, resident of Bakaitari Part-I, PS-Matia, District-Goalpara, in support of his claim that he is an Indian. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the materials on record, we are also of the view that there is prima facie material to show that the petitioner is an Indian and not a foreigner. Accordingly, we would remand the matter to the Foreigners' Tribunal to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for which the petitioner will appear before the learned Tribunal and adduce evidence by filing necessary additional documents including the opinion dated 01.07.2016 passed in F.T. Case No. FT/5/50/MA/2016 by which one Saibalik Hajong, whom the petitioner claims to be his mother was declared an Indian by virtue of registration before 1966. In the event the petitioner is able to show that said Saibalik Hajong is his mother, it can be a clinching evidence to prove that the petitioner is also an Indian, in addition to the other documents relied on by the petitioner i.e. Relief Eligibility Certificate, the order dated 27.06.1964 issued by the office of the Officer on Special Duty, Relief and Rehabilitation Refugee Camp, Matia, copies of which are already available in the record of the Tribunal. 11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned opinion dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Goalpara, Assam, in F.T. Case No. 4601/G/2011 and direct the learned Tribunal to pass a fresh opinion after hearing the petitioner and considering the evidence that may be adduced by the petitioner in this regard as directed above. The petitioner will, accordingly, appear before the learned Tribunal on or before 23.12.2021 and adduce evidence. The interim order passed by this Court on 22.03.2017 will continue to operate till conclusion of the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. 12. LCR be sent back to the concerned learned Tribunal immediately.