JUDGMENT : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. 1. Heard Dr. K.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jiten Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, FT & NRC. Also heard Shri P. Sharma, learned State Counsel, Assam; Mr. S S Roy, learned CGC and Shri H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI. 2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the opinion rendered by the learned Member Foreigners Tribunal No. 2 Morigaon on 25th of May 2018 in FT case no. 3/2013 whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of the post 1971 stream. Notice in this case was issued on 21/8/2018 and the operation of the impugned opinion was kept under suspension during pendency of this petition. Further, the writ petition was restricted to decide the lis vis-a-vis the petitioner only. The records requisitioned from the Trial Court have been received and the case is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner claims that he had not received notice from the Tribunal regarding the proceedings against him. He claims that he received information about the pendency of the reference against him when he visited the NRC Centre for updating his NRC status. The petitioner immediately arranged for appearing before the Learned Tribunal to contest the reference pending against him. Upon making enquiry in the Tribunal, it was revealed that FT case number 3/2013 had been instituted in the Foreigners Tribunal no. 7 Morigaon, Assam not only against the petitioner but also against his wife and children. 4. The petitioner filed his written statement on the 11th of January 2018. He was thereafter examined as DW1 on 7th of February 2018 along with his wife, who was examined as DW2 and the government Gaonburha Bhim Rabidas was examined as DW3. In support of his claim of citizenship the petitioner exhibited 10 documents. The petitioner exhibited the electoral roll of 1966 as Exhibit 1 , where the name of his projected father appeared showing his age to be 45 years. He exhibited the Electoral Roll of 1970 as Exhibit 2 claiming that the name of his projected father and projected mother appeared therein showing them to be aged about 50 years and 43 years respectively. He exhibited the Electoral Roll of 1970 as Exhibit 2 claiming that the name of his projected father and projected mother appeared therein showing them to be aged about 50 years and 43 years respectively. He thereafter exhibited the electoral roll of 1977 is Exhibit 3 , where, he claimed that the name of his projected father appeared showing him to be aged about 60 years of age, the name of his projected mother appeared showing her to be aged about 53 years and his name appeared showing him to be aged about 25 years. The electoral roll of 1989 was exhibited as Exhibit 4 where the petitioner claimed that his name appeared showing him to be aged about 47 years and his wife appeared with 36 years of age. The electoral roll of 2017 was exhibited as Exhibit 5 where he was shown to be 57 years of age. He exhibited his PAN card as Exhibit 6 , his voter card as Exhibit 7 and two numbers of revenue receipts were exhibited as Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 respectively. Exhibit 26 was a certificate issued by the Gaon Burha. The Gaonburha, as observed hereinabove had adduced evidence as DW3 in favour of the petitioner. 5. Although several other exhibits were marked during the proceedings, the same related to proving the citizenship of his wife and children and therefore they are not being discussed here for the sake of brevity. 6. While delivering its opinion, at the threshold the learned Tribunal observed that since no proper enquiry had been conducted against the wife and the children of the petitioner, the reference would not proceed against the family members of the petitioner. Thereafter, having considered the materials available on record, the learned Tribunal rendered the impugned opinion that the petitioner herein had failed to discharge his burden of proof that his parents and grandparents existed in Indian soil prior to 01.01.1966 or that he was born in India through genuine Indian parents. The learned Tribunal therefore returned an opinion that the petitioner had illegally entered into India from Specified Territory on or after 25.03.1971 and he is a foreigner of the post 1971 stream. This opinion is facing a challenge in the present writ petition. 7. The learned Tribunal therefore returned an opinion that the petitioner had illegally entered into India from Specified Territory on or after 25.03.1971 and he is a foreigner of the post 1971 stream. This opinion is facing a challenge in the present writ petition. 7. Elaborate arguments were advanced on behalf of the contesting parties, with the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned opinion and the learned counsel for the respondents supporting its validity. However, we are not referring to all the submissions made by the learned counsel since we have noticed certain facts in the decision-making process of the learned Tribunal, discussion of which would suffice to adjudicate the present lis. 8. A perusal of the impugned opinion would reveal that the Learned Tribunal had taken the pain to discuss all but one vital document relied upon by the petitioner. 9. With regard to the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, i.e. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 respectively, the learned Tribunal rejected the evidentiary value on the ground that they were certified copies of voter list and the petitioner did not produce the original electoral rolls to prove the contents of the documents and he did not examine the official who had issued the certified copies. Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 relied upon by the petitioner, which were the voter list of 1989 and 2017 respectively, were rejected by the learned Tribunal of the ground that they were documents of the post 1971 period and that a scrutiny of the age of the petitioner as reflected in the said voter list display major discrepancies. Exhibit 6 , which was the PAN card of the petition was found not to lend support to the claim of the petitioner since the contents of the PAN card are based on a self declaration form to be filed up by the assessee. Exhibit 7 which was a copy of the voter identity card of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that voter ID card is not a reliable and trustworthy document to prove citizenship. Exhibit 26 relied upon by the petition was the certificate issued by the Gaonburha of village Kapurpura. The reason given by the Learned Tribunal to reject the evidence of the Ganonburha is an interesting read. Exhibit 26 relied upon by the petition was the certificate issued by the Gaonburha of village Kapurpura. The reason given by the Learned Tribunal to reject the evidence of the Ganonburha is an interesting read. The Gaonburha had appeared as DW3 and verified the authenticity of the certificate issued by him and stated that the petitioner was a permanent resident of village Kapurpura and that the petitioner was a citizen of India. Yet, his evidence has been rejected in toto on the ground that, at the time when notice issued by the Tribunal was required to be served on the petitioner and he was not being traced, the same Gaonburha had issued a certificate that the petitioner was not a resident of Kapurpura village. Ironically, when he was adducing evidence before the Tribunal, he was neither confronted with his earlier certificate nor cross examined on that point. 10. The aspect of the matter which has caught our attention is that the Learned Tribunal did not discuss the relevancy of Exhibit 3 at all while rendering his opinion. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner had claimed that the electoral roll of 1977 had included his name along with his projected father and projected mother. In our considered opinion, Exhibit 3 did not deserve the blind eye that was turned to it and the Learned Tribunal was bound in law to have considered not only the other exhibits but also Exhibit 3 in proper light. 11. We have also noticed that after having made all discussions as noted herein above, the Learned Tribunal had also directed the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon to do the needful as per law against the other family members of the petitioner. It is only thereafter, as per the opinion, that he heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the absence of representation for the State. This gives an impression that the Learned Tribunal had already framed its mind on the issue even before hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the opinion of this Court, the above observations are sufficient grounds to interfere with the opinion impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal no. 1, Morigaon on 23.5.2018 in F.T. Case No. 03/2013 arising out of Police Reference FT case no 251/2012. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal no. 1, Morigaon on 23.5.2018 in F.T. Case No. 03/2013 arising out of Police Reference FT case no 251/2012. 13. We remand the matter back to the Learned Tribunal to render a fresh opinion after hearing the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner herein and the State, and by taking into consideration all relevant pleadings and exhibits already available on record. 14. The petitioner shall appear before the Learned Tribunal along with the st certified copy of this order on or before 31 of October 2025 without requirement of any further notice. We make it clear that in the event that the petitioner fails to appear as directed hereinabove, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 15. Registry to forthwith return the original records to the Tribunal along with a copy of this order. We expect the Learned Tribunal to expeditiously render its opinion, preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the records. 16. No costs.