JUDGMENT : N.Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No.3. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned opinion dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners' Tribunal No.5th at Goalpara, in F.T. Case No.F.T./5/388/MO/2016 arising out of ERO Reference Case No.616-69/37, by which the petitioner has been declared as a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 3. We have also perused the records, which have been requisitioned. 4. In the present case, the reference was made by a letter of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara, under Memo No.GLP/B/Doubtful/2006/574, dated 30.08.2006 addressed to the Member, Foreigners' Tribunal, Goalpara, stating that as per Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the case of a doubtful voter of Shri Samsul Hoque, S/O Fajal Rahman, Village-Dubapara, P.S.-Mornoi, District-Goalpara has been forwarded along with the police verification report to the competent authority vide ERO's Case No.616-69/37. 5. Upon reference being made, notice was issued to the petitioner Samsul Hoque, S/O Fazal Rahman, resident of Dubapara by the Foreigners' Tribunal No.5th, Mornoi, Goalpara, Assam, which was duly received by the petitioner and the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement and number of documents including voters lists of 1966, 1971, 1974, 1985, 1989 in support of his claim that he is not a foreigner but an Indian. The petitioner also appeared before the Tribunal and examined himself as DW-1. The petitioner also produced one Soleman Ali, the projected brother of the petitioner who was examined as DW-2. 6. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses as well as the documentary evidences, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not been able to prove his case and accordingly, held that the petitioner Samsul Hoque of village Dubapara is a foreigner of post 1971 stream, who entered India illegally. 7. 6. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses as well as the documentary evidences, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not been able to prove his case and accordingly, held that the petitioner Samsul Hoque of village Dubapara is a foreigner of post 1971 stream, who entered India illegally. 7. Referring to the written statement filed by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal noted that the petitioner had stated that he was born and brought up at village Uzirer Char under P.S. Baghbar in the District-Kamrup, sometime in the year about 1971 and Fazal Haque and Anowara Khatun are his parents, and Badsa Munsi and Jeleman Nessa were his grandparents. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner had stated in his written statement that his grandparents were Batcha Munchi and Jeleman Nessa. The names of Batcha Munchi and Jeleman Nessa, the projected grandparents of the petitioner were included in the electoral roll of 1966 with their son Fazal Rahman and his wife Anora Khatun. The Tribunal also noted that the name of the grandfather has been changed to Badsa Munsi as recorded in the electoral roll of 1971 and the names of parents of the petitioner was recorded as Fazlur Rahman, S/O Badsa and Anowara Khatun, W/O Fazlur and Jeleman Nessa, W/O Badsa at village Uzirer Char and thereafter, their names were included and enrolled in the electoral roll of 1974. Subsequently, in the year 1985, the names of the petitioner Samsul Haque, S/O Fazal Haque and Apna Khatun, W/O Fazal were included. Subsequently, the names of the petitioner and his wife Hanufa Khatun of village Dubir Char were mentioned in the electoral roll of 1989 under village Uzirer Char. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted to Pet Kata under PS-Mornoi and stayed there for few years and again shifted to Dubapara about 16 years ago and settled permanently there and the name of the petitioner and his wife were enrolled in the electoral roll of 2015 but the same was marked as 'D'. 8. The learned Tribunal thereafter examined the evidence offered by the petitioner in his affidavit and the cross-examination. 8. The learned Tribunal thereafter examined the evidence offered by the petitioner in his affidavit and the cross-examination. Referring to the cross-examination, the Tribunal noted that the petitioner had stated that he was 45 years and took birth in the village Uzirer Char and was brought up in the said village and Badsa Munsi and Jeleman Nessa were his grandparents and they used to live at village Ramapara Pam and his mother was Anowara. Learned Tribunal also referred to the evidence of DW-2. After referring to various electoral rolls relied upon by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal noted that there is no proof except the electoral rolls to prove the paternity of the petitioner. It has been observed that in the electoral rolls the names of the petitioner, his parents and his grandparents were different. The name of the petitioner's grandfather had been shown as Batcha, Badsa and the name of his father had been shown as Fazal Haque and Fazal Rahman and also there is a difference in the age of these persons. Considering the differences in the name as well as in the age of the projected parents and grandparents, the learned Tribunal held that there was no sufficient proof on record to believe that Badsa Munsi and Batcha Miya and Fazal Haque and Fazlur Rahman are the same person. The learned Tribunal also held that the assertion that the petitioner Samsul Haque of village Dubapara was born and brought up through them as mentioned in his written statement and the evidences are not at all trustworthy. 9. As regards the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal, Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner's father had been recorded as Fazal Rahman in the voters' lists of 1966, 1970, 1971 and 1974. The name of the petitioner's father has been consistently recorded as Fazal Rahman in the voters' lists of 1966, 1970, 1971 and 1974 though differently as Fazal Munsi in 1985 and as Fazal Haque in 1989. In the 1989 voters list the name of the petitioner's father Fazal Haque has been shown along with the petitioner. However, the name of the petitioner's mother Anowara Khatun has been correctly and consistently shown in all these voters lists. In the 1989 voters list the name of the petitioner's father Fazal Haque has been shown along with the petitioner. However, the name of the petitioner's mother Anowara Khatun has been correctly and consistently shown in all these voters lists. Learned counsel for the petitioner also has submitted that the petitioner in his affidavit has explained the shifting of the village from Ramapara to Uzirer Char in 1971, and stayed there up to 1999 and thereafter, shifting from Uzirer Char to Dubapara in 2015 and as such change in the name of the village in the subsequent voters' lists of 1971, 1974, 1985 and 1989 by showing it as Uzirer Char has been explained. Similarly, the change of the name village from Uzirer Char to Dubapara also has been explained after they shifted in the year 2015. Further, as regards the name of the petitioner's grandfather Badsa Munsi, it has been stated that the discrepancy is minor in as much as the name of the grandmother of the petitioner has been shown correctly as Jeleman Nessa though the name of Badsa Munsi has been sometime recorded as Badsa or Batcha Munchi. It has been submitted that the aforesaid discrepancy has been explained by the petitioner as well as by his brother Soleman Ali in their testimony before the Tribunal. 10. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner’s mother's also has remained almost consistent and there has been no variation in the name of the petitioner's mother and accordingly, it has been submitted that merely because there was some variation in the petitioner's father's name, the plea of the petitioner could not have been disbelieved. It has been submitted that the Tribunal ought to have presumed in favour of the petitioner in establishing his linkage to his parents and grandparents. Learned counsel for the petitioner also has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in support of his submissions: i. (2019) 5 SCC 534 – Sirajul Hoque Vs. State of Assam & Ors. ii. WP(C) No.1818/2019 – Haidar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors. iii. WP(C) No.4116/2019 – Idrish Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors. iv. 2015 (2) GLT 617 – Abdul Matali Vs. Union of India & Ors. v. (2000) 8 SCC 382 – State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Oma & Ors. State of Assam & Ors. ii. WP(C) No.1818/2019 – Haidar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors. iii. WP(C) No.4116/2019 – Idrish Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors. iv. 2015 (2) GLT 617 – Abdul Matali Vs. Union of India & Ors. v. (2000) 8 SCC 382 – State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Oma & Ors. vi. (1986) 2 SCC 486 – Sodhi Transport Co. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 11. Per contra, Mr. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, has submitted that it is on record that the petitioner has categorically stated in his evidence that he is the son of one Fazal Haque which is clearly evident from the evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit filed before the Tribunal. In the said affidavit filed by the petitioner, nowhere he has stated that his father is also known as Fazal Rahman, thus, trying to show that Fazal Rahman and Fazal Haque are the names of the same person. Thus, as far as the identity of the petitioner's father i.e. Fazal Haque is concerned, there is an ambiguity. Only in regard to his grandparents, the petitioner has sought to explain that Batcha Miya/Badsa Munchi or Batcha Munchi, Badsha Munsi alias Miya are one and the same person. But he never tried to explain in respect of his father i.e. Fazal Haque. It has been submitted that in the voters lists of 1966, 1971, the name of the petitioner's father has been shown as Fazal Rahman and in the voters list of 1989 where his name is recorded along with his father, the name of his father has been recorded as Fazal Haque, though there is no person as Fazal Haque who is stated to be the son of Badsa Munchi in the earlier voters lists. In other words, there is no person called Fazal Haque, who was in the State of Assam prior to 1971 through which the petitioner is claiming his linkage. 12. Further, it has been submitted that in the voters list of 1989, Fazal Haque is shown to be of about 70 years, in which event he would be born sometime in 1919. On the other hand, the projected father of the petitioner Fazal Rahman has been shown to be 30 years in 1966, in which event, he would be born around 1936. On the other hand, the projected father of the petitioner Fazal Rahman has been shown to be 30 years in 1966, in which event, he would be born around 1936. Thus, there is a huge gap in the year of birth of the projected father i.e. 1919 and 1936 and as such, because of the huge difference, the evidence of the petitioner cannot be believed. 13. Mr. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, further submits that the name of the petitioner's mother also has not been shown to be consistent. In some places, it has been recorded as Anowara Khatun though the petitioner claims that his mother is Anowara and in the voters' list of 1985 it has been recorded as Apna Khatun. Thus, even in the name of the petitioner's mother there is a variation. Further, it has been submitted that the voters list of 2015 which has been relied upon by the petitioner before this Court, was not before the Tribunal and as such the same cannot be referred to at this stage. Accordingly, Mr. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, submits that if the petitioner has not been able to prove that Fazal Rahman is his father since he has claimed that Fazal Haque is his father and as there is no proof that Fazal Rahman and Fazal Haque are the same person, nothing remains in the evidence of the petitioner to show his linkage. All other evidence are of no use if the petitioner has not been able to prove his linkage with the projected father before 1971. It has been submitted by the learned special counsel, FT, that in the present case, there is no documentary evidence to show his linkage with his projected father Fazal Haque before 1971 only there is evidence to show existence of some person called Fazal Rahman before 1971. 14. Further, referring to Section 2(a) and Section 5(4)(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 it has been submitted that any change in the spelling of a name would change the identity of the person and in the present case, it is clearly evident that there is not only a difference in the spelling of the petitioner’s name but also in the spelling of the name of the petitioner’s father. The entire surname of the father has been changed from Haque to Rahman and this change cannot be considered as minor one so as to come within the purview of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sirajul Hoque Vs. State of Assam [ (2019) 5 SCC 534 ] or of the decision in Haidar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.1818/2019, decided on 30.03.2021]. Further, referring to the decision of this Court in Basiron Bibi Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2018(1) GLT 372], Mr. Payeng has submitted that discrepancies in the voters' lists cannot be accepted. It has been held in the aforesaid decision in Basiron Bibi (supra) that one cannot accept only the favourable portion of a document, but the entire document has to be accepted in toto. Thus, in the present case, the petitioner cannot use only a portion of the voters list which is favourable but has to accept the entire voters list, in which case, it will be seen that the voters lists do not support the case of the petitioner. 15. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India [ (2005)5 SCC 665 ], learned special counsel, FT, has submitted that the information which is within the personal knowledge of the proceedee must be properly disclosed. In the present case, the petitioner had categorically claimed that his father is Fazal Haque and he never disclosed that his father is also known as Fazal Rahman and as such this discrepancy cannot be said to be a minor one. Further, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there has been a large scale influx of persons from the then East Pakistan before the commencement of December, 1970 Indo-Pak war and this has been termed as aggression and as such when such large number of illegal migrants had entered into India, these discrepancies cannot be ignored considering the threat posed to the security and integrity of the Nation. 16. Coming to the evidence of DW-2, Soleman Ali, who the petitioner claims to be his brother, it has been submitted relying on the decision of this Court in Asia Khatoon Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.4020/2017, decided on 21.11.2019] and Nur Begum Vs. Union of India & Ors. 16. Coming to the evidence of DW-2, Soleman Ali, who the petitioner claims to be his brother, it has been submitted relying on the decision of this Court in Asia Khatoon Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.4020/2017, decided on 21.11.2019] and Nur Begum Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.1900/2019, decided on 18.02.2020], such oral evidence without any corroborative documentary evidence cannot be relied. In the present case, there is no documentary evidence to show the relationship of the petitioner with the said Soleman Ali, the projected brother and as such, in absence of such documentary evidence, the oral evidence of the said Soleman Ali, DW-2, the projected brother of the petitioner, cannot be relied upon. Since the aforesaid discrepancies cannot be said to be minor and cannot be ignored, the opinion of the Tribunal can be said to suffer from irregularity or illegality and thus warranting interference by this Court. 17. In response, Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in many of the cases as in the present case, the petitioners are illiterate and also they had not been properly and advised legally by the counsel and as such, this Court has to take a realistic approach in dealing with such cases and as such, such discrepancies can be ignored. 18. Further, referring to the police report preceeding the reference, Mr. Sikdar has submitted that in the report, the authorities themselves had stated that after verification it has been disclosed that Md. Samsul Haque has been shown to be the son of Late Fazal Rahman of village 112 Dubapara and during verification it has been ascertained that the actual surname of the father of the petitioner is Rahman not Haque and as such, it has been submitted that even the authorities were clear as to the actual name of the petitioner's father and as such, the Tribunal cannot approach with a inflexible attitude as regards the identity of the petitioner's father. This police report made before the reference, however, was not considered by the Tribunal at the time of making its opinion. As regards the aforesaid police report, it has been submitted by Mr. Payeng that the police has no authority to make any further inquiry after an inquiry made by the ERO. 19. We have also perused the records. This police report made before the reference, however, was not considered by the Tribunal at the time of making its opinion. As regards the aforesaid police report, it has been submitted by Mr. Payeng that the police has no authority to make any further inquiry after an inquiry made by the ERO. 19. We have also perused the records. There are three documents, which are on record as per the records requisitioned from the Tribunal. One is the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara, dated 30.08.2006, which is with the reference to ERO's Case No.616-69/37. There is another report by the In-Charge, Dakaidal Watch Post, Dist.-Goalpara, dated 16.12.2005 addressed to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara, making certain verification in respect of the petitioner Samsul Haque. In the said document, there is also a reference to ERO's Case No.616-69/37. There is another set of documents i.e. Annexure-A, format for verification Officer's report. Though it is signed by one Prabir Kr. Adhikary, Assistant Engineer, PHE, Goalpara Division, Goalpara, it is not dated and Annexure-B is the format for making reference to the Competent Authority by the office of the Electoral Registration Officer, 37-Goalpara East Assembly Constituency, dated 15.06.2005, in which the name of the petitioner has been recorded as Samsul Haque and the father's name is Fajal Haque, who was stated to be an ordinary resident of 124 Dubapara. By the said Annexure-B, the matter was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara along with the report of the LVO. 20. In that regard, Mr. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, submits that once a reference was made by the ERO to the police on 15.06.2005, there could not have been any further inquiry made by the police, which appear to be done as per the report submitted on 16.12.2005 and thereafter, the reference was made by the S.P. to the Foreigners' Tribunal on 30.08.2006. 21. Mr. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, has submitted on the basis of the decision of this Court in WP(C) No.1065/2018 [Safiya Begum Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 13.05.2019] that once a reference has been made by the ERO, it being a quasi-judicial authority, the police could not have made any further inquiry in that regard. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge has cited a decision in Sayam Uddin Vs. Union of India & Ors. Union of India & Ors., decided on 13.05.2019] that once a reference has been made by the ERO, it being a quasi-judicial authority, the police could not have made any further inquiry in that regard. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge has cited a decision in Sayam Uddin Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.91/2019, decided on 19.02.2019], relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows:- “22. In so far Electoral Registration Officer is concerned the exercise undertaken by him while marking a person as a “D” voter in the electoral roll is a quasi judicial exercise. If he holds the view after examining the enquiry report of the Local Verification Officer that the concerned person is not a citizen of India he is required to forward the case of that person to the competent authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police. If it is so forwarded by the Electoral Registration Officer, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police has to make a reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunals under order 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 based on the report received from the Electoral Registration Officer. Question of making further enquiry by the Superintendent of Police in such a case would not arise because enquiry has already been made by the Electoral Registration Officer by exercising quasi judicial powers and the Superintendent of Police cannot sit over such decision of the Electoral Registration Officer. He has to forward the same by making the reference to the competent Foreigners Tribunal for its opinion.” 22. Accordingly, it has been submitted that in the present case it was not permissible on the part of the S.P. to make further inquiry and to that extent the said inquiry cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. 23. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that Section 5 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 referred to by the learned Special Counsel is not applicable inasmuch as the said Section relates to only an acknowledged foreigner, who comes to India illegally and if change in the name of the foreigner is made, it will change the identity of the foreigner. However, in the present case, till determination is made by the Foreigners Tribunal, no one can be declared to be a foreigner and, as such, any change in the name which is part of the proceeding cannot be brought within the scope of Section 5. 24. It has been further submitted that the decision rendered in Safiya Begum (supra) is also not be applicable in the present case. 25. Referring to the opinion dated 21.08.2017, it has been submitted that the name of the father of the proceedee has been clearly mentioned as late Fazal Rahman but in the Annexure-A (Format for verification Officer’s report), the name of the petitioner’s father has been shown as Fajal Hoque. Similarly, in Annexure-B (Format for making reference to the competent authority), the name of the father has been clearly mentioned as Fajal Haque. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, these variations happen and it is not a case of the petitioner changing his father’s name. Accordingly, the said decision is not applicable. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a decision rendered on 18.02.2021 with regard to one Md. Lutfar Rahman, who is the brother of the petitioner and the son of Fajal Hoque of village Dubapara, PS. Mornoi, Dist. Goalpara. In the said decision, the proceedee has been declared to be an Indian by the Foreigners Tribunal No.5th at Goalpara in FT Case No. FT/5/187/MO/17. 27. However, as regards this submission, Mr. Payeng has submitted that this was never the part of the record before the Tribunal and cannot be relied upon. 28. Before we deal with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we may examine the reasons and the grounds on which the learned Tribunal gave the finding that the petitioner is a foreigner of post 1971 stream and not an Indian. 29. Learned Tribunal having referred to the written statement and the Electoral Rolls of 1966, 1974, 1985 and 1989 noted the discrepancies in the age mentioned in the voters lists. 30. The learned Tribunal noted that the petitioner’s projected grandfather Batcha Munchi was shown as aged about 90 years in the voters list of 1966 and 64 years in the voters list of 1971 and 68 years in the 1974 voters list. 30. The learned Tribunal noted that the petitioner’s projected grandfather Batcha Munchi was shown as aged about 90 years in the voters list of 1966 and 64 years in the voters list of 1971 and 68 years in the 1974 voters list. Similarly, the age of the projected grandmother Jeleman Nessa was shown to be 60 years in the voters list of 1966 and 28 years in the voters list of 1971 and 53 years in 1974 voters list. In the same line, the learned Tribunal also noted that the age of the petitioner’s projected father Fazal Rahman was shown to be 30 years in 1966 voters list, 38 years in 1971 voters list and 38 years in the voters lit of 1974, 60 years in 1985 voters list and 70 years in 1989 voters list. 31. Further, the learned Tribunal noted that the petitioner’s projected mother Anowara Khatun was shown to be 25 years in 1966 voters list, 28 years in 1971 voters list, 28 years in 1974 voters list, 50 years in 1985 voters list and 50 years in 1989 voters list. 32. Learned Tribunal having noted the discrepancies in the age shown in respect of the other family members including the petitioners in various voters lists and accordingly, held that the age of the parents and grandparents of the petitioners were not in order and the learned Tribunal accordingly, held that the petitioner had miserably failed to discharge his burden as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 33. It is also to be noted that the age reflected in the voters lists are not accurate age and does not reflect the correct age of the voters. In fact, the learned Tribunal had also observed in para 5 of the impugned order that the age of the parents and grandparents of the petitioner were recorded in the Electoral Roll through oversight of the person who was entrusted to do the same as well as for the fault of the person entrusted for the same, he cannot be suffered. Thus, the learned Tribunal also clearly acknowledged to the situation prevailing elating to incorrect entry of age in the voters list. Thus, the learned Tribunal also clearly acknowledged to the situation prevailing elating to incorrect entry of age in the voters list. Thus, mistakes and the non-reflection of the correct age in the voters list is not unusual which can happen due to the mistakes on the part of the persons who recorded the age in the voters list which fact had been acknowledged by the learned Tribunal itself. 34. Thus, if the learned Tribunal itself acknowledges that such discrepancy can happen, the learned Tribunal ought not to have made this ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal ought to have also examined other parameters of the voters list as regards the concerned village, District and Legislative Assembly Constituency for which the voters lists have been prepared and also keeping in mind the explanation offered by the petitioner and the shifting of the village. The petitioner has clearly stated in his written statement which was reiterated in his evidence before the Tribunal and not shaken during the cross-examination about his narration of the changes in the village resulting in the changes in the village in the voters lists. He had categorically stated in his written statement and as also recorded by the learned Tribunal in para 4 of the impugned order that the petitioner was born and brought up in village Uzirer Char under P.S. Baghbar and that Fazal Haque and Anowara Khatun were his parents and Badsa Munisi and Jeleman Nessa were his grandparents. It was also stated that grandparents Batcha Munsi and Zeleman Nessa were originally in Ramapara Pam and his father and grandparents shifted to village Uzirer Char from Ramapara Pam and accordingly, their names were recorded in the voters list of 1971. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife after marriage and other family members shifted from Uzirer Char to Pet Kata and thereafter, to Dubapara. All these details have been clearly mentioned in the written statement and in his evidence before the learned Tribunal. These statements made in the written statement and during the deposition were not questioned by the State. Unfortunately, the learned Tribunal did not refer any of the evidences but rejected the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that of aforesaid alleged discrepancy in the age of grandparents which in our view, is not the correct approach. These statements made in the written statement and during the deposition were not questioned by the State. Unfortunately, the learned Tribunal did not refer any of the evidences but rejected the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that of aforesaid alleged discrepancy in the age of grandparents which in our view, is not the correct approach. The learned Tribunal ought to have examined the other aspects of the evidence. 35. The other grounds on which the learned Tribunal disbelieved the claim of the petitioner was that there was no sufficient proof on record to believe that Badsa Munsi & Batcha Miya and Fazal Haque & Fazlur Rahman are same person and that the petitioner of village Dubapara was born and brought up through them. The learned Tribunal came to the aforesaid conclusion without going through the evidences on record. The petitioner had clearly mentioned in his written statement as well as in the deposition before the learned Tribunal about the aforesaid difference in the name of his father and grandfather. Though the names apparently appear to be different in our opinion, these are not so substantial in nature but are minor discrepancies keeping in mind the other parameters of the voters lists and other evidences. 36. Having gone through the records, we are of the view that the petitioner has been able to satisfactorily explain the difference in the names of his father and grandfather that Badsa Munsi & Batcha Miya refer to one and same person and similarly Fazal Haque and Fazlur Rahman refer to one and the same person and for doing so, we have taken into account the averments made in the written statement which have been proved by the statement made before the learned Tribunal and corroborated by the statement of the petitioner’s elder brother, namely, Soleman Ali who testified before the learned Tribunal as DW2. 37. We have also noted that the name of petitioner’s father appeared along with his grandfather in the same voters list. In the voters list of 1966, the name of the petitioner’s father Fazal Rahman appeared along with petitioner’s grandfather Batcha Munshi in respect of village Ramapara, under 52 No. Baghbor LAC which indicates that Batcha Munsi and Fazal Rahman are related, being the father and son. In the voters list of 1966, the name of the petitioner’s father Fazal Rahman appeared along with petitioner’s grandfather Batcha Munshi in respect of village Ramapara, under 52 No. Baghbor LAC which indicates that Batcha Munsi and Fazal Rahman are related, being the father and son. Similarly the name of said Batcha Munsi was shown along with Jelemon Nessa who the petitioner claims to be his mother as the wife of Batcha Munsi, the father of petitioner Fazal Rahman as the son of Batcha Munsi along with his wife Anora Khatun who the petitioner claims to be his mother. 38. In the voters list of 1971, what we have seen is that after they shifted from Rampara Pam to Uzirer Char, the name of said Batcha Munsi has been recorded as Badsha Miah, son of Romjan. Similarly, the name of said Badsha Miah was shown along with Jelemon Nessa in the case of earlier voters list of 1966. 39. Similarly, Fazal Rahman has been shown Fazlur Rahman as son of Badsha and Fazlur Rahman has been shown along with his wife Anowara Khatun along with the projected mother of the petitioner. In the earlier voters list of 1966, the petitioner’s mother is shown as Anora Khatun as the wife of the petitioner’s father. 40. In view of the similarity in the relationship amongst these persons as father, grandfather, mother and grandmother, we are of the view that these are minor discrepancies which can happen when the names are changed from one village to another village. 41. We have also noted that when the petitioner’s parents and grandparents shifted to Uzirer Char, the names continued to appear in the subsequent voters list of 1974. Their names remain similar, i.e. Badhsa Miah, Jelemon Nessa, Fazlur Rahman and Anowara Khatun. 42. Though there are some minor changes in the voters list of 1985 wherein Fazlur Rahman is shown as Fazal Munshi and his wife Apna Khatun and not as Anowara Khatun along with Soleman who is the elder brother of the petitioner who testified as DW2. In the voter list of 1989, though petitioner’s father has been shown as Fazal Haque not as Fazal Munshi but in the 1989 voters list petitioner’s father’s name is shown along with his wife Anora Khatun along with the petitioner Samsul Haque though recorded as Apna Khatun in 1985 voters list. In the voter list of 1989, though petitioner’s father has been shown as Fazal Haque not as Fazal Munshi but in the 1989 voters list petitioner’s father’s name is shown along with his wife Anora Khatun along with the petitioner Samsul Haque though recorded as Apna Khatun in 1985 voters list. This is in respect of the same village Uzirar Char in the same Legislative Assembly Constituency. 43. Though it may be stated as also contended by the learned counsel for the State that because of the differences in the names, it may refer to different persons. Though the said contention cannot be said to be improbable on the ground that a person may use the voters list of another person to claim that he is the same person to show that he is an Indian citizen, yet, in the present case, what we have observed is that there is a series of voters lists consistent with the written statement made by the petitioner and the testimony given before the learned Tribunal that in spite of these minor discrepancies in the name they refer to the same persons. If the State Government was really concerned that the petitioner was using somebody’s voters lists to claim that he is an Indian citizen, nothing prevented the State Government to make its own verification after the evidence was adduced by the petitioner and also produce necessary evidence and witnesses to show that the voters lists relied upon by the petitioner refers to somebody else. Though it is true as also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2005) 5 SCC 665 that it is for the petitioner to give the particulars as it will be within his knowledge and not of the State but once these personal details have been disclosed, nothing prevents the State Government to verify the same, if the State is doubtful about these disclosures by a proceedee. It cannot be said that it will be impossible for the State to verify as to whether such claim is correct or not by making its own verification after the disclosures are made as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) as well as by this Court in State of Assam and Ors. Vs. Moslem Mondal and Ors., 2013 (1) GLT 809. Vs. Moslem Mondal and Ors., 2013 (1) GLT 809. In this regard, we would recall the very words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal (I) as held in para 26 thereof. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while stating that in order to establish one’s citizenship, normally, he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth, (ii) place of birth, (iii) name of his parents, (iv) their place of birth, and citizenship etc., which are within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went to observe as follows, “......................... after he has given evidence of these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. ....................” Thus, in view of above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it would be impermissible for the State to say that the State has no responsibility in the aforesaid exercise to determine the citizenship of a person. If a proceedee has disclosed credible relevant facts on the basis of which he is claiming citizenship, it will be incumbent upon the State to, in our opinion, verify these facts and if necessary, lead evidence in rebuttal. 44. In the present case, what we have noted that the State has not led any evidence, neither it has made any endeavor to verify the facts asserted by the petitioner. In the cross-examination of the petitioner, nothing was suggested that these claims of the petitioner are false and not believable. The evidence/statement of other witnesses also had remained unshaken in course of the proceeding. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal for not believing the claim of the petitioner does not appear sound in law and nor on facts. 45. We have also noted that the petitioner had produced one Soleman Ali (DW2) stated to be his elder brother who corroborated the evidence of the petitioner and the name of said Soleman is found along with the projected parents of the petitioner Fazal Munshi and Apna Khatun in respect of village Uzirar Char under 45 No.Baghbar LAC in the voters list of 1985 which is on record. Thus, we are not able to agree with the observation made by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner has not been able to show any relationship with Soleman Ali. 46. We are satisfied that the said Soleman is the elder brother of the present petitioner and if that is so, this evidence of Soleman Ali in conjunction with the Electoral Rolls would go on to show that the petitioner has been able to prove the linkage and lineage through his parents and grandparents who are admittedly Indians. 47. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is required to be revisited in the light of the observations made by us today and accordingly, the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal No.5th, Goalpara for reconsideration by the learned Tribunal as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner and to pass a fresh opinion in accordance with law and keeping in mind the observations made by us as above. 48. In that view of the matter, we do not feel it necessary to deal with the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 49. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned opinion dated 21.08.2017 rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.5th, Goalpara in F.T. Case No.F.T.5/338/MO/2016 [E.R.O. Reference Case No.616-69/37]. 50. Petitioner will appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.5th, Goalpara within a period of 1 (one) month from today. 51. Petitioner will continue to remain on bail on similar terms and conditions as directed by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2017 till a fresh opinion is rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.5th, Goalpara as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner. 52. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 53. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.