JUDGMENT : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5; Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for respondent No. 2; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI for respondent No. 6 and Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC for respondent No. 7. Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 8. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No. 7th at Lanka, Nagaon in FT/L/Case No. 214/2015 [Arising out of SPs. Case No. 935/2011] by which the petitioner was declared as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent opinion dated 08.02.2017 passed by the aforesaid Tribunal by which the learned Tribunal declined to interfere with the opinion dated 21.09.2016 and accordingly, dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Upon a reference being made against the petitioner, the learned Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner after receipt of the notice appeared before the Tribunal in person and filed his written statement supported by certain documents claiming that he is an Indian citizen by birth and not a foreigner. 4. Learned Tribunal considered the documents filed by the petitioner in the following manner: (i) Ext.1 is the certified copy of the voters list of 1966 in which the name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Promud Chandra Das, a resident of village Padampukhuri, P.S. Murajhar Bolck No. 116 under 93 No. Hojai Constituency is mentioned. However, the learned Tribunal observed that the name of the petitioner’s mother is not shown in the said voters list of 1966 and as such, it cannot be taken as a conclusive proof. (ii) Coming to voters list of 1971, NRC voters details, learned Tribunal held that it does not have any evidentiary value as per law. (iii) Exts.3 and 4 were certified copies of the voters list of 1997 and 2010 in which the name of the petitioner’s parents, family particulars and the petitioner’s own name have been mentioned as the residents of same village and locality. (iii) Exts.3 and 4 were certified copies of the voters list of 1997 and 2010 in which the name of the petitioner’s parents, family particulars and the petitioner’s own name have been mentioned as the residents of same village and locality. However, the learned Tribunal observed that the petitioner has failed to explain as to why neither the petitioner’s parents’ names nor his own name are shown in any of the voters lists and official documents prepared prior to 1997 and there is a long gap of 26 years. Further, the learned Tribunal observed that these documents are recent documents and crossed the cut-off date. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned Tribunal rejected the said documents, Exts.3 and 4. (iv) Coming to Exts.7 and 8 which are the school certificate and the certificate of birth of the petitioner showing his date of birth respectively, the learned Tribunal held that in the said exhibits there are over-writing and as such, it was held that these documents are tampered and cannot be accepted as valid documentary evidences and the learned Tribunal held that a person who comes to the court must come with clean hands and it appears that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as claimed. (v) Coming to registered Sale Deed, which was exhibited as Ext.9, in the name of the petitioner dated 26.06.1993, learned Tribunal held that this is a very recent document which is not enough to establish his claim. Moreover, the document is not proved as per the provision of law. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he is a genuine Indian citizen and accordingly, declared him to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents exhibited, we are not able to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal for the following reasons. 7. As regards the voters list of 1966 which was exhibited as Ext.1 in which the name of one Promud Chandra Das appears as a resident of village Padumpukhuri, P.S. Murajhar, Block No. 116 under 93 No. Hojai Constituency, the same could not be ignored merely because the name of the mother was not shown. 7. As regards the voters list of 1966 which was exhibited as Ext.1 in which the name of one Promud Chandra Das appears as a resident of village Padumpukhuri, P.S. Murajhar, Block No. 116 under 93 No. Hojai Constituency, the same could not be ignored merely because the name of the mother was not shown. In typical cases before the Foreigners Tribunal, attempt of the proceeded is to show his linkage with his father and therefore, merely because the name of the mother is not shown in the voters list, it cannot be a ground to reject such a document if it is otherwise relevant and admissible. In our opinion, the said certified copy of the voters list of 1966 is very much relevant document and admissible evidence which can be considered along with other evidences. The authenticity of the said certified copy of the voters list of 1966 was also not questioned. 8. As regards voters list of 1971 based on NRC details, though it is now accepted that the aforesaid NRC document cannot be the basis of claiming citizenship, yet, it can be used to corroborate the evidence of the petitioner that his father’s name i.e. Promud Chandra Das is included in the voters list. That the name of the petitioner’s father continues to be reflected in the voters list of 1971 after it was shown in the voters list of 1966 which will indicate the presence of the petitioner’s father from 1966 to 1971. 9. As regards the voters lists of 1997 and 2010, in our view, these are very important documents which could not have been ignored by the learned Tribunal merely on the ground that no voters lists have been shown prior to 1997. The voters lists of 1997 and 2010 show the name of the petitioner’s father Promud/Promud Das along with his other family members of which the petitioner has mentioned in his evidence to prove his linkage with his projected father. 10. The petitioner has also stated in his evidence that he along with his parents had subsequently shifted their residence from Padumpukhuri to Khring Khring village and as such, in our opinion, the said voters list corroborate his evidence on this aspect. 11. 10. The petitioner has also stated in his evidence that he along with his parents had subsequently shifted their residence from Padumpukhuri to Khring Khring village and as such, in our opinion, the said voters list corroborate his evidence on this aspect. 11. There is also the voters list of 2014 which was exhibited as Ext.5 in which the name of the petitioner again appears as the son of Promud Das as a resident of village Khring Khring along with other family members. However, there is no reference to Ext.5, voters list of 2014 in the consideration of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is silent on this aspect. 12. The petitioner also exhibited the document issued by the Gaonburah which was exhibited as Ext.6. The said document was not considered by the learned Tribunal, perhaps, because of the fact that no Gaonburah or any other authority was examined to prove the said certificate and as such, no fault can be found with the Tribunal on this count. 13. Coming to Exts.7 and 8 which are school certificate/Transfer certificate and the birth certificate, there appears to be certain over writing in the said certificates which this Court also observed. There is certain overwriting on the date of birth. In view of the above, though there may be dispute about the actual date of birth, it does not necessarily mean that the petitioner had never studied in the said school from which the said certificates were issued. As far as the Ext.8 is concerned, it appears to be a birth certificate issued by the Government of Assam which bears the signatures of the competent authorities. Though there is overwriting on the date of birth which may render doubtful of the actual date of birth of the petitioner, however, in respect of other details like name of the father entered in the said document, the same can be looked into. As the said birth certificate was issued in the name of Sri Babul Ch. Das as the son of Promud Das who the petitioner claims to be his father, it may have certain relevance. 14. The registered Sale Deed was executed on 26.06.1993, which however, was not considered by the learned Tribunal on the ground that it is a post 1971 document. Das as the son of Promud Das who the petitioner claims to be his father, it may have certain relevance. 14. The registered Sale Deed was executed on 26.06.1993, which however, was not considered by the learned Tribunal on the ground that it is a post 1971 document. In our view, that is not a proper ground to reject the said registered Sale Deed, inasmuch as the registered Sale Deed can corroborate other facts and issues as to whether the petitioner is indeed the son of Promud Chandra Das who he claims to be his father. 15. From the original records, we have noted that the petitioner appears to have filed a certified copy of the voters list of 1966 which also shows the name of his mother. However, it appears that the said document was filed after the Tribunal passed the impugned opinion dated 21.09.2016. 16. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal as mentioned above, perhaps, is not correct for the reasons we have recorded as above. 17. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal would be required to reassess the evidences in terms of the observations made above and give a fresh opinion as regards the citizenship status of the petitioner. 18. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon Court No. 7th at Lanka, Nagaon in FT/L/Case No. 214/2015. As a result, subsequent opinion dated 08.02.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal is also set aside. 19. The petitioner will appear before the learned Tribunal within a period of 1(one) month from today. 20. The learned Tribunal after hearing the petitioner and on proper appreciation of the evidences on record will pass a fresh opinion. 21. Since the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2018, he will continue to remain on bail on similar terms and conditions. 22. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. 23. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.