JUDGMENT : N.Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; Ms. Devi for respondent No.4 as the learned Standing Counsel, NRC; Mr. N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos.2, 6 & 7; Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for respondent No.3 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.5. 2. The present petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.7, Barpeta in F.T. Case No.165/2016 [Corresponding to R/FT Case No.52/14]. The impugned opinion was passed against the petitioner as the procedee had failed to prove his linkage with his parents after considering all the evidences available on records with his projected parents. 3. The Tribunal, after considering all evidences and pleadings adduced by the petitioner, came to the finding that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof that he was born to genuine Indian parents and accordingly, the Tribunal declared him a foreigner of post 1971 stream as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and also declared the wife of the petitioner Jamiran Nesssa as a suspected illegal immigrant. 4. We have perused the discussions and reasons for the decision of the Tribunal in F.T. Case No.165/2016 vide impugned order dated 03.10.2018. The petitioner as proceedee had relied upon 6 (six) documents which were exhibited as Exhibit-A, B, C, D, E & K in the proceeding and which are as follows: a) Ext.A is the translated certified copy of the voter list of 1966. b) Ext.B is the translated certified copy of the voter list of 1970. c) Ext.C is the translated certified copy of the voter list of 1997. d) Ext.D is the translated certified copy of the voter list of 2010. e) Ext.E is the Gaonburah Certificate dated 27.06.2016. f) Ext.K is the Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) of Gajibar Rahman. 5. b) Ext.B is the translated certified copy of the voter list of 1970. c) Ext.C is the translated certified copy of the voter list of 1997. d) Ext.D is the translated certified copy of the voter list of 2010. e) Ext.E is the Gaonburah Certificate dated 27.06.2016. f) Ext.K is the Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC) of Gajibar Rahman. 5. As regards Exhibit-E which is the Certificate issued by the Gaonburah, the Tribunal by referring to the cross-examination of the Gaonburah observed that the Gaonburah had admitted during his cross-examination that Exhibit-E was issued on the basis of the voters list and that he was not aware of the provision of the Executive Instruction part-VIII, Chapter-VIII of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 and the Gaonburah also admitted that without following the established procedure, he was issuing these kinds of certificates to the people residing in his jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the said Executive Instruction does not authorize a Gaonburah to issue such a certificate in the manner done and accordingly, the Tribunal held that the issuance of the certificate by the Gaonburah was without following the statutory and legal sanction, is inadmissible in evidence and as such, the Gaonburah is disentitled to prove the contents of the document by oral evidence. Further, the Tribunal also noted that in the said certificate, Exhibit-E, the State Emblem was found to be embossed at the top of the certificate which amounts to unauthorized use of the State Emblem which renders the certificate inadmissible in evidence and accordingly, discarded the certificate. 6. Coming to the evidence of one Gajibar Rahman, D.W. 3, who claimed that he is the brother of the petitioner, the Tribunal on perusal of the affidavit of D.W. 3 noted that there is no disclosure by the said Gajibur Rahman about the lineage of the said D.W. 3 with the petitioner. The Tribunal also observed that the only disclosure the petitioner made in the affidavit is that Anser Ali and Jarian Katun are his parents. The Tribunal accordingly, held that it can be presumed that D.W.3 does not have any special knowledge of the petitioner Kalu Miya’s lineage and hence, his evidence on the basis of the relationship status that he is the brother of the petitioner is not reliable and trustworthy. The Tribunal accordingly, held that it can be presumed that D.W.3 does not have any special knowledge of the petitioner Kalu Miya’s lineage and hence, his evidence on the basis of the relationship status that he is the brother of the petitioner is not reliable and trustworthy. Then, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the four voters lists. On examination of the said voters lists, the Tribunal observed that in the voters list of 2010 Amser Ali has been recorded as the father of Kalu Mia and the Tribunal also noted the findings in the Form-II of the Inquiry Officer which recorded Kalu Miya’s father as Amser Ali during enquiry. Thus, the Tribunal held on the basis of the aforesaid voters list and report of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner Kalu Miya is the son of Amser Ali and Jarina Bewa and the names of Amser and Jarina Bewa also find place in the voters lists of 1997 and 2010, which are in conformity with the claim of the petitioner that his father’s name is Amser Ali, which was also recorded during the enquiry. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that it is an established fact that Kalu Miya’s parents are Jarina Bewa and Amser Ali. 7. Referring to the voters list of 1997 where the age of the petitioner’s mother Jarina Bewa was reflected as 75 years, the Tribunal held that if that is so, she would be born in the year 1922 and accordingly, her age in the year 1966 would be 44 years and in the year 1970 she would be 48 years. Further, the Tribunal also noted that Jarina Bewa is shown to be related to Amser Ali. Apart from that, the Tribunal referred to Exhibits-A & B i.e. voters lists of 1966 & 1970 where the names of other family members appeared but the petitioner did not disclose his relationship with the aforesaid persons and as such, the Tribunal held that nondisclosure of the names and entries of those persons appearing in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 make the voters lists doubtful. Further, referring to 1966 & 1970 voters lists, it was observed that the entry of Baser was not disclosed by the petitioner in his pleadings. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner did not disclose his grandfather’s name and where he was born. Further, referring to 1966 & 1970 voters lists, it was observed that the entry of Baser was not disclosed by the petitioner in his pleadings. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner did not disclose his grandfather’s name and where he was born. As such, the entry of Baser in the voters list of 1970 remains not proved as this entry was a doubtful one. 8. Referring to the discrepancy in the age of Jarina Bewa as mentioned above, the Tribunal held that though the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 show that Jarina Bewa was 31 and 35 years old, in contrast to 44 and 48 years, as shown in the voters list of 1997 and 2010, which according to the Tribunal, is a huge discrepancy and not a minor one. Further, the Tribunal held that the voters lists of 1966 & 1970 mentioned the name of Anser Ali, whereas, in the subsequent voters lists of 1997 and 2010 the name of the father appeared as Amser Ali and the Tribunal held that there is no material evidence on record to show that Amser Ali and Anser Ali are the one and same person. Thus, the Tribunal took the view that the voters lists of 1966, 1970 and 1997 belong to two different families. The votes lists of 1966 & 1970 belong to the family members of Amser Ali and the voters list of 1997 belongs to the family members of Anser Ali and accordingly, the Tribunal held that it has not been proved that Amser Ali and Anser Ali are the same person and as such, the names of the petitioner’s father in the voters lists of 1966 & 1970 are not proved and are doubtful and referable to other person. Coming to the voters lists of 1997 and 2010, the Tribunal held that these are the documents of post 1971 and as such, does not confer any right of citizenship to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the petitioner has not proved his citizenship. 9. Assailing the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid discrepancy in the father’s name of the petitioner i.e. Amser Ali or Anser Ali is a minor one and can be ignored. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the petitioner has not proved his citizenship. 9. Assailing the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid discrepancy in the father’s name of the petitioner i.e. Amser Ali or Anser Ali is a minor one and can be ignored. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Sirajul Hoque vs. the State of Assam, (2019) 5 SCC 534 . Further, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the Para-117.5 & 117.6 of State of Assam and Ors. Vs. Moslem Mondal and Ors, 2013 (1) GLT 809 decided by the Full Bench of this Court where this Court found the discrepancy in the name of Mobesh Ali and Mofesh Ali as irrelevant. In the present case, since the said discrepancy is minor, accordingly, the opinion of the Tribunal cannot be said to be correct. 10. Coming to the Gaonburah certificate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the said document was not relied upon, the Gaonburah himself had come before the Tribunal and testified that he knew the petitioner and his father, and such oral evidence could not have been ignored by the Tribunal. It has also been submitted that not only the petitioner in his written statement, but also his brother had given evidence that Amser Ali and Anser Ali are same person and the Gaonburah also testified before the Tribunal that Amser Ali and Anser Ali are the same person. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the discrepancy in the name, especially, in the Muslim community, more particularly, in the rural area is very common and as such, no serious view should be taken. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Para-11 & 12 of the order dated 04.03.2014 passed in Md. Anuwar Hussain @ Md. Anowar Husain vs. Union of India, [WP(C) No.4258/2013]. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reason was mentioned as to why the deposition of the petitioner’s brother was not believed by the Tribunal though he had clarified everything in his affidavit filed as well as in the testimony before the Tribunal and all the discrepancies in names and ages had been clarified in the written statement of the petitioner and in his evidences. It has been submitted that the voters lists and the evidences on record would show that the petitioner and his projected parents hailed from the same locality i.e. village: Barbhitha, P.S. Tarabari, Dist. Barpeta, 47 No. Chenga LAC and accordingly, submits that the Tribunal’s opinion cannot be sustained in law. 13. Referring to the opinion of the Tribunal that the petitioner had not disclosed the relationship in his written statement, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Para-19 & 25 of the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by this Court in Haidar Ali vs. Union of India & Ors, [WP(C) No.1818/2019] and submitted that non-mentioning in the written statement is not fatal, if it comes out in the deposition. 14. Coming to the finding of the Tribunal that the identity of Baser Ali has not been disclosed by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not true, as the petitioner’s younger brother Gajibar Rahman, who had deposed before the Tribunal as D.W.3, had clearly mentioned that Baser Ali is his grandfather and as such, the relation of Baser Ali as the grandfather of the petitioner can be also easily verified. 15. Regarding the alleged discrepancy in the names of the petitioner’s mother i.e. Jarina Bewa and Jarina Khatun as recorded in the voter lists of 1997, 1966 & 1970, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is customary practice in the Muslim Community that after the death of the husband, a Muslim woman (widow) would adopt the name ‘Bewa’ (corrupt form of ‘Bidhawa’) and discard the name ‘Khantun’and as such, in the present case also after the death of the petitioner’s father, his mother changed her name from Jarina Khatun to Jarina Bewa. However, her names as Jarina Khatun and Jarina Bewa appeared against the name of the petitioner’s father and in the same address. Thus, it is conclusively proved that Jarina Khatun and Jarina Bewa are the same and one person, who is the mother of the petitioner. 16. However, her names as Jarina Khatun and Jarina Bewa appeared against the name of the petitioner’s father and in the same address. Thus, it is conclusively proved that Jarina Khatun and Jarina Bewa are the same and one person, who is the mother of the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the contention of the State as well as the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner has failed to establish link with his mother is not correct, as the name of petitioner’s mother Jarina Khatun appeared along with his father in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 and the name of Jarina Bewa appeared along with the petitioner in the voters list of 1997. Thus, these documents have clearly shown the linkage of the petitioner along with his mother Jarina Khatun @ Jarina Bewa. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner’s younger brother Gajibar Rahman, who deposed as D.W. 3, appeared along with the petitioner’s name in the voters lists of 1997 and 2010 with their mother’s name. Thus, it has been conclusively shown that D.W.3 had clarified about the linkage of the petitioner with his projected parents. 17. On the other hand, it is the stand of Mr. N. Pathak, learned Special Standing Counsel that there is no illegality in the opinion rendered by the Tribunal as the petitioner had failed to prove his linkage. 18. Mr. Pathak has submitted that that the Tribunal has rightly held that the certificate issued by the Gaonburah cannot be acted upon and it does not contain the details of the village number etc., and neither was it in accordance with the rule nor was he authorised to do so. Further, in the Gaonburah certificate the State Emblem was used, which is not permissible and as such, the said certificate is not admissible in law. It has been also submitted that the Gaonburah who had deposed as D.W.2 had clearly mentioned in his deposition that his knowledge was based on voters lists and he did not maintain any public document and as such, his evidence about his knowledge of the petitioner and his father is not based on records and cannot be relied upon. It has been also submitted that the Gaonburah who had deposed as D.W.2 had clearly mentioned in his deposition that his knowledge was based on voters lists and he did not maintain any public document and as such, his evidence about his knowledge of the petitioner and his father is not based on records and cannot be relied upon. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rupajan Begum vs. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 579 , wherein it has been clarified and emphasised that the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Secretary is by no means a proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person is established. Further, such a certificate has to be verified at two stages; firstly, the authenticity of the certificate has to be established; and secondly, the authenticity of the contents has to be established and establishing the authenticity of the contents would require an exhaustive process of verification. Further, it has been also submitted that any such certificate merely is a supportive evidence of shifting of residence of a married woman from one place to another which does not in any way establish her citizenship. The learned State Counsel submits that no such due enquiry was made before issuance of such certificate and such certificate is only issued for shifting of a person and does not establish the claim of citizenship of the holder of the certificate. Referring to Para-15 from the aforesaid decision, it has been submitted that the said certificate would be subject to proper inquiry and can be issued only after proper enquiry and verification and in the present case, no such proper enquiry was undertaken and said certificate was issued merely on the basis of the voters list and as such, the said certificate has no evidentiary value. It has been submitted that this view was also adopted by this Court in WP(C) No. 7451/2019 [Jabeda Begum @ Jabeda Khatun vs. the Union of India, decided on 12.02.2020]. Accordingly, learned State Counsel submits that oral evidence without any documentary evidence cannot be relied upon for proof. The learned Special Standing Counsel has also referred to the decisions of this Court passed in WP(C) No. 1900/2019 [Nur Begum vs. Union of India, decided on 18.02.2020] and WP(C) No.4020 /2017 [Asia Khatun vs. Union of India, decided on 21.11.2019]. Accordingly, learned State Counsel submits that oral evidence without any documentary evidence cannot be relied upon for proof. The learned Special Standing Counsel has also referred to the decisions of this Court passed in WP(C) No. 1900/2019 [Nur Begum vs. Union of India, decided on 18.02.2020] and WP(C) No.4020 /2017 [Asia Khatun vs. Union of India, decided on 21.11.2019]. 19. The learned Standing Counsel accordingly submits that mere presence of the names in the voters lists do not mean that the petitioner is a citizen of this country and Rupjan Begum (supra) was decided in the context of the NRC, principle adopted by this Court in deciding the cases in the Foreigners Tribunal. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner in response submits that as far as Rupjan Begum (supra)is concerned, the matter was decided on the issue of validity of Panchayat certificate for the NRC linkage which is not the case in the present case and as such, distinguishable. Coming to the contention of oral evidence, referring to the para-42 of Haidar Ali (supra), it has been submitted that the oral evidence is very much admissible. 21. However, before we examine the respective contentions of the contesting parties, it may be apposite to examine the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not an Indian, but a foreigner. 22. The learned Tribunal, as mentioned in para No.7 of the impugned order held that since there was no disclosure of the paternal grandparents’ name in the written statement as to where his paternal grandfather was born, how many brother and sister(s) his grandfather had and how many brother and sister(s) his father had, subsequent evidence could not be relied upon. 23. The learned Tribunal also observed that in his written statement the petitioner did not mention how many brothers and sisters he had and also the sons and daughter(s). 24. According to the learned Tribunal, these informations were within the specific knowledge of the petitioner but he did not mention the same and as such, the failure to disclose the basic material facts which were required to be placed in the first instance in his written statement, the Tribunal would be justified to draw adverse inference. The learned Tribunal thus did not rely upon the evidence of the petitioner as details were not given in the written statement. 25. The learned Tribunal thus did not rely upon the evidence of the petitioner as details were not given in the written statement. 25. We are unable to agree with the said approach of the learned Tribunal. 26. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in Haidar Ali (supra) wherein this Court held that non-mentioning of facts in the written statement which the proceedee subsequently mentions in the evidence before the learned Tribunal cannot be a ground to reject the evidence. In this regard, one may refer to para No.29 of Haidar Ali (supra), which is quoted hereinbelow, “29. From the above, what is important to note is that the Foreigners Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 merely provides a proceedee a reasonable opportunity for making a representation and producing evidence in support of his case before the Tribunal and as such, normally, the rules of pleadings including that of “written statement” as provided under the CPC are not applicable. As a corollary, the principles contained in the CPC relating to the scope of written statement and limitations placed thereon cannot be strictly applied in the proceedings before the Tribunal though the principles may generally be applied. In fact, all opportunities should be given to a proceedee to enable him to produce all such documents which come to his possession even at a later stage also, to substantiate his claim that he is an Indian. No pedantic view should be taken, if there has been some delay or if the same is not mentioned in the written statement. Even under the scheme of the CPC, the right to file any document at a later stage, even if at the appellate stage, is always there, subject to leave of the court and if such documents are relevant and highly necessary and could not be produced earlier after exercise of due diligence (vide Order XLI Rule 27 CPC). Thus, if the proceedee is able to make out a case for filing a document at a later stage, the same cannot be denied and no adverse inference can be drawn. Similarly, if any fact is introduced at the time of adducing evidence, though the same is not mentioned in the written statement, no exception can be made. It cannot be said to be improvement and adverse inference accordingly taken thereof. Similarly, if any fact is introduced at the time of adducing evidence, though the same is not mentioned in the written statement, no exception can be made. It cannot be said to be improvement and adverse inference accordingly taken thereof. Non-mentioning of any person or fact or document in the written statement, if mentioned later, cannot be said to cause any surprise or prejudice to the State so as to ignore such new fact or document. In any event, liberty is always with the State to rebut any evidence after the proceedee has completed adducing evidence. We have also noted that the witnesses who adduced evidence are cross-examined by the State and as such, if such deposition cannot be shaken during the cross-examination, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner.” 27. Further, the learned Tribunal declined to rely on the certificate issued by the Gaonburah of village Barbhita which was exhibited as Ext.E on the ground that the said certificate was issued merely on the basis of the voters list and he was not aware of the various Executive Instructions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886 for issuing such a certificate. Further, the learned Tribunal also held that since the State Emblem was endorsed on the certificate, it would render the said certificate inadmissible in evidence and accordingly, the said certificate was discarded. 28. While we do not wish to make any observation as to whether the said Gaonburah followed the procedure required for issuing the certificate or the use of State Emblem would render the same inadmissible, we are of the view that the said certificate still can be used for limited purposes. Petitioner was a resident of village Barbhita, Maneri, P.S. Tarabari under Mouza Chenga, District Barpeta, Assam. Even if the said certificate issued was not as per norms/rules, the fact that the Gaonburah knew the petitioner as a resident of the said village cannot be ignored. Though in the cross-examination of the said Osmani Gani, the Gaonburah, he admits that he does not know the proper procedure for issuance of such a certificate, he asserted that he knew the petitioner and his family members. Thus, for the limited purpose of proving that the petitioner was a resident of village Barbhita the evidence of the said Gaon Burah Md. Osman Goni can be relied upon if not for any other purpose. 29. Thus, for the limited purpose of proving that the petitioner was a resident of village Barbhita the evidence of the said Gaon Burah Md. Osman Goni can be relied upon if not for any other purpose. 29. It is a case of the petitioner that he was born and brought up at village Barbhita and if that is so, that fact stands corroborated by the oral statement of the said Gaonburah. 30. As regards the evidence of Gajibar Rahman, DW3, who was projected as brother of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal held that on perusal of the affidavit of DW3, it is evident that there is no disclosure by the said Gajibar Rahman about the lineage of the petitioner and the only disclosure he made in the affidavit was that Anser Ali and Jarina Khatun were his parents. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that it can be presumed and inferred that DW3 does not have the special means of knowledge of petitioner’s lineage and hence, the evidence of the DW3 that he is the brother of the petitioner is not reliable and trustworthy. 31. As regards this observation, while going through the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit as found in the original records, Gajibar Rahman specifically mentioned in para No.3 of the evidence-in-chief that he is the brother of the petitioner and he and his brother were born and brought up at village Barbhita, P.S. Tarabari, District Barpeta, Assam in their parental house. In the cross-examination, the said Gajibar Rahman reiterates that the petitioner is the elder brother and clearly mentioned that his mother’s name is Jarina Khatun and that the grandfather’s name is Baser Ali and reiterates that he and his brother were born at village Barbhita, which fully corroborates the evidence of the petitioner. 32. Therefore, we are not able to agree to the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal as recorded in the impugned opinion in para 11. Para 11 of the impugned order reads as follows, “11. Witness Gajibar Rahman DW-3 by his oral examination-in-chief on Affidavit claimed that he is the elder brother of O.P. On perusal of the Affidavit of DW-3 it is evident that there is no disclosure by Gajibar Rahman about the lineage of O.P. The only disclosure he made in his Affidavit that Anser Ali and Jarina Khatun were his parents. Witness Gajibar Rahman DW-3 by his oral examination-in-chief on Affidavit claimed that he is the elder brother of O.P. On perusal of the Affidavit of DW-3 it is evident that there is no disclosure by Gajibar Rahman about the lineage of O.P. The only disclosure he made in his Affidavit that Anser Ali and Jarina Khatun were his parents. Therefore, it can be safely presumed and inferred that DW-3 does not have the special means of knowledge of O.P. Md. Kalu Miya’s lineage and hence, the evidence of DW-3 on the basis of relationship that he is the brother of O.P. is not reliable and trustworthy evidence.” 33. It may be noted that the learned Tribunal further on the basis of the entries made in the voters lists of 1997 and 2010 held that it is established that the petitioner’s parents were Jarina Bewa and Amser. 34. Further, referring to the voters lists of 1966 (Ext.A) and 1970 (Ext.B) of village Barbhita under 54 No. Chenga Legislative Assembly Constituency, learned Tribunal observed that in the voters list of 1966, there were altogether five entries and in the voters list of 1970, there were six entries except Anser Ali and Jarina Khatun. However, there is no disclosure about these names appearing in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 in the pleading. Thus, the learned Tribunal proceeded to hold that non-mentioning of the names of others other than the names of Anser Ali and Jarina Khatun in the written statement would render the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 doubtful, because of which, the entries in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 would stand not proved. 35. We utterly fail to understand the logic adopted by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner was obviously required to show his lineage with his projected parents and as such, he was not required to explain the entries entered in the said voters list. Though explaining and mentioning the entries of other names other than the projected parents would have clarified the matter better his written statement the names of other persons who were found entered in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 mere non-mentioning cannot be a ground to disbelieve the voters lists. Though explaining and mentioning the entries of other names other than the projected parents would have clarified the matter better his written statement the names of other persons who were found entered in the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 mere non-mentioning cannot be a ground to disbelieve the voters lists. It is to be mentioned that these voters lists are certified copies and unless these voters lists are held to be not genuine nor authentic, the learned Tribunal could not have drawn such an adverse inference. 36. Further coming to para No.14 of the impugned opinion, the learned Tribunal observed that the projected father of the petitioner is Anser Ali but the petitioner did not mention that Anser Ali is the son of Baser. The learned Tribunal accordingly, held that since the entry of Baser has not been disclosed by the petitioner in his pleading and also not disclosed where his grandfather Baser was born, the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 cannot be relied upon. 37. We fail to understand this approach adopted by the learned Tribunal. 38. Petitioner was keen to establish that he is the son of Anser Ali and Jarina Khatun and as such, if he did not mention that Anser Ali was the son of Baser (the grandfather of the petitioner), it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the voters lists of 1966 and 1970. In the present case, the genuineness of the certified copies of the voters lists of 1966 and 1970 have not been questioned. 39. Further, as mentioned in para 15 of the impugned opinion, the learned Tribunal appears to have taken note of the discrepancy in the age in respect of Jarina Bewa recorded in the year 1966 and 1970 and observed that in the voters list of 1966 and 1970 the age of Jarina Khatun was shown to be 31 years and 35 years in place of 44 years and 48 years respectively as shown in the voters list of 1997 and accordingly, the learned Tribunal observed that because of this vast difference in the age, the said voters lists cannot be relied upon. 40. We are of the view that these discrepancies cannot be said to be of such a magnitude that the voters lists cannot be believed if other particulars in respect of the name of the village and relationship are shown to be same. 40. We are of the view that these discrepancies cannot be said to be of such a magnitude that the voters lists cannot be believed if other particulars in respect of the name of the village and relationship are shown to be same. It is also well known that the age recorded in the voters lists are not accurate and generally, the approximate age is mentioned in the voters lists as recorded by the enumerators and they are not considered to be accurate. 41. Further, the learned Tribunal seems to have taken note of the difference in the names of the petitioner’s projected father Amser Ali. In some of the voters lists, it is shown as Amser Ali and in others it has been mentioned as Anser Ali. 42. We are of the view that the said discrepancy is a minor in nature and would be of no significance. Further, the learned Tribunal appears to have made certain observations which, perhaps, are not based on any evidence but mere surmises as in para No.17 where the learned Tribunal made the following observations, “17. It is felt and observed by this Tribunal that a person who is suspected to be an illegal migrant collusively by matching and resembling the similarly of names can picked up the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 with the help of internet communication system by collecting data of the electoral roll from the computer which suit and served his purpose and this manipulation have become a common practice by matching the same with his parents and grandparents and it is so subtle, that with a little overlook the illegal migrant can easily become a Citizen of India with the help of documents of other genuine Indian similarly situated named person(s).” 43. In our view, the aforesaid observation made by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be based on record and is also prejudicial to the proceedee (petitioner) without any evidence, and as such, is not warranted and hence, is liable to be expunged. 44. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the reasons given by the learned Tribunal in arriving its opinion appears to be inappropriate, nor legally correct and as such, the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal based on such irrelevant, illogical reasons would be rendered invalid. 45. 44. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the reasons given by the learned Tribunal in arriving its opinion appears to be inappropriate, nor legally correct and as such, the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal based on such irrelevant, illogical reasons would be rendered invalid. 45. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the opinion of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in law and hence, requires to be reconsidered. 46. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned opinion dated 03.10.2018 rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.7, Barpeta in Case No. F.T.165/2016 [Corresponding to R/F.T. Case No.52/14] and remand the matter to the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.7, Barpeta for fresh consideration. 47. Since, we are remanding the matter for fresh consideration, we are of the opinion that it may not be necessary for us to consider the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties. 48. The learned Tribunal will be required to reassess the evidence on record in terms of our observation made above and in accordance with law and give a fresh opinion as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner. 49. The petitioner will accordingly appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.7, Barpeta within a period of 1(one) month from today. 50. Petitioner will continue to remain on bail on similar terms and conditions as directed by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2019 till a fresh opinion is rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.7, Barpeta as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner. 51. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 52. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.