JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; Ms. L. Devi; learned Standing Counsel, NRC and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2. Perused the records. 3. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal-6th, Silchar in FT.6th Case No.684/16 by which the learned Tribunal held that the O.P./petitioner has failed to prove that he is an Indian citizen and accordingly, declared him to be an illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971 stream. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it may be apposite to reproduce the reasons and conclusions of the learned Foreigners Tribunal which is also quite short and brief, which reads as follows : “I have gone through the written statement and documents relied upon by the opposite party. I have also gone through the evidence in the case record. The O.P. himself examined as witness of DW-I. O.P. has submitted his Examination-In-chief through an affidavit vide Ext-A. In cross examination O.P. stated that O.P. was born and brought up at Village Dhonebari Pt-II, P.S.-Sonai, Dist.-Cachar, Assam. O.P. stated that O.P.’s father name Romiz Uddin, S/o Late Arbesh appeared in the voter list of 1965 vide serial no.195, house no.291, electro part no.45 at village Dhonebari Part-II under L.A.12 Sonai constituency, marked as Ext-1 is the certified copy of the voter list. O.P.’s father Romiz Ali, S/o Arbesh Ali appeared in the voter list of 1970 vide serial no.221, house no.63, electro part no.45 at village Dhonebari Part-II under L.A. 12 Sonai constituency, marked as Ext-II is the certified copy of the voter list. O.P’s name Jainul Hoque, S/o Somu Mia appeared in the voter list of 1997 vide serial no.624, house no.564, electro part no.67 at village Dhonebari Part-II, under L.A.10 Sonai constituency, marked as Ext-III is the certified copy of the voter list. O.P’s name Jainul Hoque, S/o Somu Mia appeared in the voter list of 2015 vide serial no.839, house no.564, electro part no. 81 at village Dhonebari Part-II under L.A. 10 Sonai constituency, marked as Ext-IV is the certified copy of the voter list. O.P’s name Jainul Hoque, S/o Somu Mia appeared in the voter list of 2015 vide serial no.839, house no.564, electro part no. 81 at village Dhonebari Part-II under L.A. 10 Sonai constituency, marked as Ext-IV is the certified copy of the voter list. O.P.’s name Jainul Hoque Laskar, S/o Somu Mia appeared in the voter list of 2014 vide serial no.938, house no.564, electro part no.11 at village Dhonebari Part-II under L.A. 10 Sonai Constituency, marked as Ext.-V is the certified copy of the voter list. O.P. stated during cross examination that Romiz Uddin Laskar and Somu Mia is same and one person, but could not produce any document in his support to prove that Romiz Uddin Laskar and Somu Mia is same and one person. On careful perusal of above evidence of DW-1 it appears that in exhibit I and exhibit II O.P.’s father name is Romiz Ali, S/o Arbesh Ali, and in exhibit III, IV and V O.P.’s father appears as Somu Mia. Therefore a genuine and serious doubt arise to believe that Romiz Ali and Somu Mia is same and one person. So it is difficult to accept that Romiz Ali is the father of the O.P. Considering the entire material on record and the discussion above that the O.P. has miserably failed to discharged his burden to prove that O.P. is not a Foreigner. It appears that O.P. entered into India without any valid documents and O.P. is termed to be Foreigner/illegal migrant of post 25/02/1971 stream. Order It appears that the O.P. has failed to prove that he is an India citizen. So reference is answered in the affirmative and declaring against the O.P. is an illegal migrant of post 25/03/1971 Stream. So, O.P. has no right to live within the territory of India and send back from India within an early date, Superintendent of Police (B), Cachar, Silcahr restrain free from movement of the O.P. and take necessary step in accordance with law. E.R.O. under L.A. 10 Sonai constituency is directed to delete the name of the O.P. from voters list of village Dhonebari Pt.-II Thus the case disposed off. Inform SP(B), Cachar accordingly.” 5. E.R.O. under L.A. 10 Sonai constituency is directed to delete the name of the O.P. from voters list of village Dhonebari Pt.-II Thus the case disposed off. Inform SP(B), Cachar accordingly.” 5. Thus, from the above, it is quite apparent that the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner has not been able to prove his projected father Romiz Ali is the same person who has been also shown as Somu Mia in absence of any documentary documents. 6. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel, however, submits that perusal of the series of voters lists in respect of the same village, i.e. Dhanehari Part-II and same Constituency would clearly indicate that the name of the father has been recorded as Ramiz Ali, Romiz Uddin, Ramiz Ali Laskar as well as Samu Mia, nick name, which however, was recorded erroneously but subsequently corrected and as such, there is no doubt that the said Samu Mia is the same person whose name have been shown as Romiz Ali, Romiz Uddin, Ramiz Ali Laskar, the father of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the voters list of 1965, the name of the petitioner’s father has been shown as Ramiz Ali, Son of Arbesh Ali in the village Dhanehari Part-II, District: Cachar, Sub-Division: Silchar under 12 No. Election Constituency, Sonai. Similarly, in the voters list of 1970, the name of the petitioner’s father was again reflected as Ramiz Ali, Son of Arbaj Ali in respect of the same village, Dhanehari Part-II and the same Constituency. In the subsequent voters list of 1975, the name of the petitioner’s father has been again shown as Ramiz Ali, Son of Arbesh Ali under Village Dhanehari Part-II, District: Cachar, Sub-Division: Silchar under 10. No. Election Constituency, Sonai. Similarly, in the voters list of 1979, the name of the petitioner’s father also has been shown as Ramiz Ali, Son of Arbesh Ali, Village: Dhanehari Part-II under the same 10 No. Sonai Election Constituency. Similar is the case in the voters list of 1985 where the petitioner’s father has been shown as Ramiz Ali, Son of Arbesh Ali in the same village Dhanhari Part-II under the same 10 No. Sonai Election Constituency. Similar is the case in the voters list of 1985 where the petitioner’s father has been shown as Ramiz Ali, Son of Arbesh Ali in the same village Dhanhari Part-II under the same 10 No. Sonai Election Constituency. However, in the subsequent voters list of 1993, the name of the petitioner’s father was recorded in his nick name Samu Mia as son of Abtesh Ali, Village-Dhanehari Part-II under the 10 No. Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the name of the petitioner was entered in the voters list for the first time in 1997, the petitioner’s name was shown as Joinul Hoque, son of Samu Mia, Village: Dhanehari Part-II, House No.564 under the same 10 No. Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency. It has been submitted that in the subsequent voters list of 2005, the petitioner’s name is again recorded as Joinul Hoque, Son of Samu Mia in the same House, Village and Constituency as No.564, Dhanhari Part-II 10 No. Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency respectively. Similarly, in the voters list of 2011, the petitioner’s name Joinul Hoque has been shown as the son of Samu Mia under the same House No.564. In the electoral roll of 2013, the petitioner’s name has been recorded as the son of Samu Mia under the same village Dhanehari Part-II, 10 No. Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency and the same House No.564. 9. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, the name of the petitioner’s father Samu Mia was corrected by showing the original and appropriate name Ramiz Ali Laskar as father of the petitioner Joinul Hoque Laskar in the voters list of 2015 in respect of Village Dhanehari Part II under 10 No. Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner has been shown as Joinul Hoque under the same house number by showing two different names of his father i.e. Ramiz Ali as well as Samu Mia which would clearly indicate Samu Mia is none other than the said Ramiz Ali @ Ramiz Ali Lasker. It has been also submitted that the petitioner had sworn the affidavit in chief, filed before the learned Tribunal to show that Samu Mia and Ramij Ali Laskar, Ramij Ali, Romuj Ali and Ramij Uddin Laskar are one and the same person. 11. It has been also submitted that the petitioner had sworn the affidavit in chief, filed before the learned Tribunal to show that Samu Mia and Ramij Ali Laskar, Ramij Ali, Romuj Ali and Ramij Uddin Laskar are one and the same person. 11. Under the circumstances, it has been submitted that the Tribunal made an error in holding that there is no document to prove that the Romiz Ali and Somu Mia are one and the same person. 12. Mr. Quadir, further submits that unfortunately, the counsel who was appearing for the petitioner before the learned Tribunal also did not bring other documents in support of the stand that the said Samu Mia and Ramiz Ali refer to the one and the same person. 13. In this connection, Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following documents. 14. The document i.e., periodic Kacha Patta showing the name of Joynul Hoque as the son of Late Romiz Uddin, who is in turn is the son of Late Arbesh Ali having Old Dag No.340 in the Village Dhanehari Part-II. Similarly, there is another document i.e. Bank Passbook issued by Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Sonabarighat, Cachar in which the name of the petitioner has been shown as son of Late Romiz Ali Laskar of Village: Dhanehari Pt. II. 15. Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unfortunately, the said documents were not filed before the learned Tribunal by the counsel of the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, submits that there are sufficient evidences in possession of the petitioner to show that the said Ramiz Ali and Samu Mia are one and the same person and therefore, the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 passed in F.T. 6th Case No. 684/16 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal 6th Silchar may be interfered by declaring the petitioner as an Indian and not a foreigner. 17. On the other hand, Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal has submitted that the voters lists from 1965 to 1985, would consistently show that the name of the petitioner’s projected father has been recorded as Ramiz Ali, Son of Arbej Ali and nowhere the name of Samu Mia appeared in the voters lists during the aforesaid period. 18. Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal has submitted that the voters lists from 1965 to 1985, would consistently show that the name of the petitioner’s projected father has been recorded as Ramiz Ali, Son of Arbej Ali and nowhere the name of Samu Mia appeared in the voters lists during the aforesaid period. 18. Mr. Sarma submits that, on the other hand, the name of Samu Mia appeared in the voters list of 1993 and the petitioner, “Joinul Hoque” had been consistently shown as son of Samu Mia in the voters lists of 1997, 2005, 2011, 2013, 2014 and only in the voters list of 2015, the name of the projected father Samu Mia has been changed to Ramiz Ali Laskar. However, the petitioner has not been able to show any document to show the said Samu Mia and Ramiz Ali are one and the same person as also held by the learned Tribunal. 19. Mr. Sarma has also submitted that during the cross-examination of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, he himself had admitted that he could not produce any document to show that Romiz Uddin Laskar and Samu Mia are the one and the same person. 20. Mr. Sarma submits that further as far as the land document and Bank Passbook are concerned, since these were not produced before the learned Tribunal, these cannot be relied upon by the petitioner before this Court. 21. Accordingly, it has been submitted by Mr. G. Sarma that there is no illegality in the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner failed to prove that Samu Mia and Ramiz Ali are the one and the same person. 22. Mr. Sarma submits that even in respect of said land document, i.e. Periodic Kacha Patta as had been relied upon by the petitioner, the said document was prepared only in 2002 and as such would not have any relevance to ascertain the status of a person whether he was present before 1971 or not. 23. Similarly, the Bank Passbook would also show that the Account was opened in the year 2016 and as such, it would not have any relevance as to whether the petitioner entered this country before 1971 or not, as this document is post 1971 and as such, has no relevancy. 24. 23. Similarly, the Bank Passbook would also show that the Account was opened in the year 2016 and as such, it would not have any relevance as to whether the petitioner entered this country before 1971 or not, as this document is post 1971 and as such, has no relevancy. 24. As we proceed to examine the rival contentions of the parties, and the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove that he is not a foreigner, it may be apposite to refer to the relevant portions of order passed by the learned Tribunal which are quoted above in para No.4. 25. From the above, it appears that the learned Tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation proferred by the petitioner that Ramiz Uddin Laskar and Somu Mia are the names of one and the same person and also held that the petitioner could not produce any document in his support to prove that Ramiz Ali and Somu Mia are one and the same person. 26. From the voters lists, certainly, the name of the petitioner’s father appears as Ramiz Ali, Ramiz Ali Laskar, Somu Mia in different voters lists. The name of Ramiz Ali consistently appears in the voters lists of 1965, 1970, 1975, 1979 and 1985 who the petitioner claims to be his father. In the subsequent voters of 1993 and 1997, the name of Samu Mia appears, who the petitioner claims to be his father. Ordinarily, at the first glance, it would appear that the said Ramiz Ali and Samu Mia are different persons. However, on a closer scrutiny, it can be noticed that the said Ramiz Ali is shown to be son of one Arbesh Ali in respect of village Dhanehari Part-II in Sonai Legislative Constituency. Thus, as far as the identity of the aforesaid Ramiz Ali, son of Arbej Ali, as a citizen of this country whose name appeared in the voters lists of 1965, 1970, 1975, 1979, 1985 is concerned, it cannot be doubted. Only the issue is whether the said Ramiz Ali and Samu Mia are one and the same person or not. Though the names appear to be quite different, it is the contention of the petitioner that Samu Mia is the nick name of Ramiz Ali and Ramiz Ali is the real name. 27. Only the issue is whether the said Ramiz Ali and Samu Mia are one and the same person or not. Though the names appear to be quite different, it is the contention of the petitioner that Samu Mia is the nick name of Ramiz Ali and Ramiz Ali is the real name. 27. We have examined closely the aforesaid voters lists of 1965, 1970, 1975, 1979 and 1985 as well as the subsequent voters lists of 1993, 1997, 2005, 2011 and 2013 where the name of Samu Mia appears as the father of Joinul Hoque, the petitioner. 28. There are, however, consistencies which may be noted. Firstly, Joinul Hoque is shown to be the son of Somu Mia in all these voters lists of 1997, 2005, 2011, 2014. Secondly, in the subsequent voters list of 2015, the names of Samu Mia as well as Joinul Hoque appear in the same village i.e. Dhonebari Pt. II under the same Legislative Assembly Constituency. Further, Samu Mia as the son of Abtesh Ali appears also independently in 1993 voters list in respect of same village and same Assembly Constituency. 29. Thus, what can be inferred is that the said Ramiz Ali who the petitioner claims to be his father and Samu Mia who the petitioner claims to be the nick name of his father Ramiz Ali appears to be same person. The documents show that Ramiz Ali who is the son of Arbez Ali is a resident of same village Dhonebari Pt.II where Samu Mia who is the son of Abtesh Ali also resides. 30. Thus, in all likelihood the said Ramiz Ali and Samu Mia refer to the one and the person. 31. Similarly, in the voters list of 1997, the name of the petitioner Joinul Hoque appears as the son of Samu Mia under the same Village Dhanehari Part-II as well as in the voters list of 2005, 2011 and 2014 voters list. In the voters list of 2015 the name of the petitioner appears as Joinul Hoque Laskar as the son of Ramiz Ali Laskar under the same village and under the same Assembly Constituency. 32. In the subsequent voters list of 2016, the name of the petitioner is also shown as Son of Ramiz Ali Laskar. In the voters list of 2015 the name of the petitioner appears as Joinul Hoque Laskar as the son of Ramiz Ali Laskar under the same village and under the same Assembly Constituency. 32. In the subsequent voters list of 2016, the name of the petitioner is also shown as Son of Ramiz Ali Laskar. It is also noted that in the voters lists of 1997, 2005, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the House Number of the petitioner Joinul Hoque is the same i.e. 564. 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claims that the petitioner got his father’s name changed from Samu Miya to Ramiz Ali Laskar in the subsequent voters lists of 2015 and 2016 which was reflected as Samu Mia in the earlier voters lists. 34. Thus, the petitioner Joinul Hoque whose name is reflected in the same house no. 564 under the same village of Dhanehari Part II in the same Assembly Constituency, is shown to be the son of either Samu Mia or Ramiz Ali or Ramiz Ali Laskar. The petitioner contends that Samu Mia is the nick name of Ramiz Ali and accordingly, his father’s name was corrected in the subsequent voters list. The said explanation appears to be reasonable and not unbelievable as there cannot be different persons with the same house number in the same village. 35. In the present case, the petitioner has clearly explained that Samu Mia is the nick name of Ramiz Ali. In the cross-examination, the petitioner was asked as to whether the petitioner could produce any document to show that the said Ramiz Uddin Laskar and Samu Mia are the same person. In our view, the same would not be necessary if the same has been sufficiently explained in course of the trial. Production of additional documentary evidences may perhaps strengthen the case of the petitioner, but under the facts and circumstances, as narrated above, in view of the explanation offered by the petitioner and in absence of contrary evidence, that Ramiz Uddin Laskar and Somu Mia are the one and the same person, it can be inferred that these names refer to the same person. On the other hand, it can be seen that there are documentary evidences to show that Ramij Uddin Laskar, Ramiz Ali, Ramiz Ali Laskar and Samu Mia are one and the same person in view of the voters lists of 1997, 2005, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 where the said Samu Mia and Ramiz Ali Laskar appeared as the father of the same person Joinul Hoque occupying the same house no. 564 in the same village of Dhanehari Part II. 36. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to prove that the said Ramiz Ali and Samu Mia are one and the same person. As far as the discrepancies in the name, where the title Laskar appears along with the petitioner and his father’s name, in our view, considering the similarity in house number, village and Assembly Constituency, the said discrepancies are not of any vital nature to disbelieve the petitioner. 37. We have also noted that in the voters lists from 1965 to 1985, the said Ramiz Ali has been shown as son of Arbej Ali. Similarly, in the voters lists of 1993, Samu Mia has been shown as son of Abtez Ali. In our view, the names Arbez Ali and Abtez Ali do not appear to be of such a wide variation as to disbelieve and come to conclusion that they belong to different persons, more so, when they belong to same village in the same constituency as discussed above. 38. It is now well settled, that the standard proof required to discharge the burden in the Foreigners Tribunal is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubts. In other words, if the proceedee is able to show on the basis of evidence so adduced that in all probability he is an, is Indian and not a foreigner, in absence of any evidence, to the contrary, which would discredit the evidence on record the proceedee can be said to have established his case. We are of the view that in the present case, there are credible evidences to show that the petitioner is son of Ramiz Ali @ Ramiz Ali Laskar @ Samu Mia, who is the resident of village Dhanehari Part II under No.10 Sonai Legislative Assembly. 39. We are of the view that in the present case, there are credible evidences to show that the petitioner is son of Ramiz Ali @ Ramiz Ali Laskar @ Samu Mia, who is the resident of village Dhanehari Part II under No.10 Sonai Legislative Assembly. 39. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal would be required to reassess the evidences on record and render a fresh opinion in accordance with law keeping in mind our observations made above. 40. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal 6th, Silchar in F.T. 6th Case No.684/16. 41. The petitioner will accordingly appear before the learned Tribunal within a period of 1(one) month and the learned Tribunal after hearing the petitioner will pass a fresh opinion. 42. 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 as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner. 43. With the above observations and directions, the present petition is, accordingly, allowed. 44. LCR be remitted to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal forthwith.