ORDER : (M.K. Kalita, J.) : 1. Heard Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 2, 6 & 7; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. P. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 5. 2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Smt. Bhagya Biswas; (2) Smt. Kamala Biswas; (3) Smt. Sushila Biswas; (4) Smt. Anima Biswas; and (5) Smt. Susanti Biswas @ Santi Bala impugning the opinion/order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon in FT(C) Case No. 225/2010, whereby the above-named petitioners were declared as foreigners under the Foreigners Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971. 3. The above-named petitioners have also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, in Review Misc Case No. 8/2018, arising out of the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010, whereby their prayer for reviewing and setting aside the order dated 19.02.2018 passed in the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010 was rejected. 4. Notice in this case was issued on 21.12.2018 and the interim protection against detention and deportation from the territory of India was granted to the petitioners. 5. The Registry has already received the case records of the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010 from the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, Assam, which was called for by this Court in connection with the instant writ petition. 6. On perusal of the records of the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010, it appears that suspecting one Shri Paresh Chandra Biswas to be a foreigner, an inquiry was initiated against him. During the police enquiry, said Paresh Chandra Biswas failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding his nationality, before the Enquiry Officer. 6. On perusal of the records of the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010, it appears that suspecting one Shri Paresh Chandra Biswas to be a foreigner, an inquiry was initiated against him. During the police enquiry, said Paresh Chandra Biswas failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding his nationality, before the Enquiry Officer. Considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, referred the matter, i.e., IMDT Case No. 436/2004, to the learned Illegal Migrants Determination Tribunal under Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as IM(D)T Act], during its force, for its opinion as to whether the said Paresh Chandra Biswas is a citizen of India or not. 7. Later on, after striking down of the IM(D)T Act, 1983 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India & Anr” reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 and as per the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court passed therein, the aforesaid case was transferred to the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, which was registered as FT(C) Case No.225/2010 considering it as a proceeding under the Foreigners Act 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 8. We have noticed from the records available before us, that after the registration of the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010, the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, by its order dated 01.04.2016, issued notice not only to the said Paresh Chandra Biswas but also to the present petitioners, fixing 13.06.2016 as the date for their appearance and submission of written statement by them. 9. It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioners of the instant writ petition are the wife (Petitioner No. 5) and daughters (Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4) of the said Paresh Chandra Biswas. It is also important to note that no reference was made against the aforesaid petitioners, however, in spite of that, notices were issued to them in the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010. 10. It also appears from the report of the process server in respect of the notice issued to the present petitioners by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, which is available on record, that the said notice was served only on the petitioner No. 5 Smt. Susanti Biswas @ Santi Bala. 10. It also appears from the report of the process server in respect of the notice issued to the present petitioners by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, which is available on record, that the said notice was served only on the petitioner No. 5 Smt. Susanti Biswas @ Santi Bala. It also appears that only the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Kamala Biswas, appeared before the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon on 13.06.2016 and filed her written statement, wherein she had stated that Paresh Chandra Biswas was her father who had expired on 18.11.1995. She also contended that she and her other family members came to India from East Pakistan before 1964 along with her late father Paresh Chandra Biswas. 11. However, by the impugned opinion/order dated 19.04.2018, the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon had opined that all the above-named petitioners are foreigners under the Foreigners Act, 1946, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the instant case, the inquiry was conducted and the reference was made only with regard to one Paresh Chandra Biswas, who has already expired on 18.11.1995. It is also submitted that neither any inquiry was conducted with regard to the nationality of the above-named petitioners, nor any reference was made in respect of the said petitioners and therefore, the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon was wrong in assuming jurisdiction and initiating proceedings against the above-named petitioners under the provisions of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the records of the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010, which was called for in connection with this writ petition. 14. A Full Bench of this Court has observed in the case of “State of Assam and Others vs. Moslem Mondal and. Others” reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 as follows: “(89) The Tribunal gets the jurisdiction to give an opinion on the question whether a person is foreigner or not only when a reference is made by the authorities mentioned in clause 2 of the 1964 Order. The Tribunal, thereafter, has to cause service, on the person to whom the reference relates, a copy of the main grounds on which he is alleged to be a foreigner. The Tribunal, thereafter, has to cause service, on the person to whom the reference relates, a copy of the main grounds on which he is alleged to be a foreigner. The Tribunal is also required to give a reasonable opportunity of making a representation, producing evidence in support of his case and after considering such evidence as may be produced as well as after hearing such persons as may deserved to be heard, it has to submit its opinion to the authority specified in that behalf in the order of reference. The Tribunal, however, is empowered to regulate its own procedure. Clause 4 of 1964 Order confers on the Tribunal the power of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, in respect of (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and his examination on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; and (c) issuing commissions for the examination of any witness. The procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure as such is not applicable in a proceeding before the Tribunal, except in relation to the matter stipulated in clause 4 of the said Order. As noticed above, the Tribunal is empowered to regulate its own procedure while deciding a reference proceeding pending before it.” 15. Moreover, in the case of “Aktaara Khatun Vs. State of Assam” reported in 2017 (2) GLT 974 as well as in the case of “Sudhir Roy Vs. Union of India” reported in 2019 (1) GLT 353, it has been settled that the presumption by itself would not lead to a conclusion that the family members of a proceedee who has been declared as a foreigner are also foreigners, though, the same may be a good cause of initiating an inquiry and make a reference against the family members of such a proceedee. 16. Without following the due procedure of law by conducting an inquiry and without making a reference, the Foreigners Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction and give its opinion against the family members of a proceedee for whom no reference was made. 17. 16. Without following the due procedure of law by conducting an inquiry and without making a reference, the Foreigners Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction and give its opinion against the family members of a proceedee for whom no reference was made. 17. On perusal of the records of the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010, we have seen that, in the instant case, the enquiry under the IM(D)T Act, 1983 was made with regard to Paresh Chandra Biswas, son of late Kesab Biswas of Village-Barkhal, Palahguri, the then Police Station, Jagiroad, Out Post-Nellie, District-Morigaon, Assam and the reference was made only in respect of said Paresh Chandra Biswas and there was neither any inquiry with regard to the nationality of the above-named petitioners, nor there was any reference made under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 with regard to them by the competent authority to the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, Assam. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon was wrong in issuing notice to the above-named petitioners under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 on 01.04.2016 initiating the proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 against them in said FT(C) Case No. 225/2010 and thereafter, giving an opinion declaring the petitioners to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971. 18. For the above stated reasons, we are constrained to hold that the impugned opinion given by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon on 19.02.2018 in the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010 with regard to the nationality of the above-named petitioners is illegal and without jurisdiction and same is accordingly, set aside and quashed. 19. Since the impugned order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon in the FT(C) Case No. 225/2010 has been set aside, consequently, the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the said Tribunal in Misc. Case No.8/2018 rejecting the prayer of the above-named petitioners for reviewing of the said order dated 19.02.2018, noted above, being not maintainable and dismissing the same being devoid of merit, is also set aside and quashed. 20. The interim order dated 21.12.2018 passed earlier in this writ petition, in favour of the petitioners stands merged with this order. 21. The Registry shall return the records of FT(C) Case No. 225/2010 along with a copy of this order to the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, forthwith. 22. 20. The interim order dated 21.12.2018 passed earlier in this writ petition, in favour of the petitioners stands merged with this order. 21. The Registry shall return the records of FT(C) Case No. 225/2010 along with a copy of this order to the learned Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Morigaon, forthwith. 22. Needless to say that it is up to the competent authority to refer the cases of the petitioners to the Foreigner Tribunal having jurisdiction to prove their nationality only after making fresh enquiry following the due procedure of law under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 23. With the above observations, this writ petitions stands allowed.