JUDGMENT : (KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.) Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters, respondent nos.2 and 6; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the NRC, respondent no.4; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent no.5. None appears on call for the Union of India. 2. It is noted that the petitioner has arrayed the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6th , Barpeta as respondent no.3. As the order of the said learned Tribunal has been assailed, the said learned Member is neither a necessary party nor an appropriate party in this writ petition. Accordingly, the name of respondent no.3 is ordered to be struck off, however, without disturbing the seriatim of the respondents. 3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 09.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6th , Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 491/15, arising out of R/Case No. C/6415/98, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who has entered Assam on or after 25.03.1971. 4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that to give evidence in support of the petitioner, the petitioner has examined her projected father, namely, Akbar Ali as DW-4, who had, amongst others, had exhibited his Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) as Ext.-L. However, the said exhibit finds no mention in the impugned opinion dated 09.10.2018. Moreover, the DW-3, who was examined by the learned Tribunal had also exhibited Ext-2 and Ext-3, which are also not referred to or discussed by the learned Tribunal in the opinion assailed in this writ petition. Moreover, in the said context, it has been submitted by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters that on perusal of the records of the learned Tribunal, she has noted that there was no cross- examination of the petitioner by the A.G.P. However, the learned Member had put questions to the petitioner, who was examined as DW-1, but the same is recorded as cross-examination through the Court. Accordingly, she has submitted that in issues where the citizenship of a proceedee is under doubt, cross-examination by the Assistant Government Pleader is very necessary. Accordingly, she has submitted that in issues where the citizenship of a proceedee is under doubt, cross-examination by the Assistant Government Pleader is very necessary. Therefore, on the ground that the documentary evidence tendered by the DW-3 and DW-4, were not considered by the learned Tribunal in the impugned opinion, the Court intends to remand the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. 5. Nonetheless, the necessary facts have to be averred to. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to mention the facts on which the case was decided by the learned Tribunal by its impugned opinion. 6. On a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta under reference IM(D)T No. C/6415/98, whereby doubt was expressed regarding the nationality of the petitioner, a proceeding was registered. Consequent upon the judgment rendered in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 , by which the IM(D)T Act, 1983 was declared to be ultra vires, proceedings were transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner had appeared and filed her written statement and thereafter, submitted her evidence on affidavit as DW-1 and had exhibited the following documents, viz. (1) certified copy of the E/Roll 1966 as Ext-A; (2) certified copy of the E/Roll 1970 as Ext-B; (3) certified copy of the E/Roll 1985 as Ext-C; (4) certified copy of the E/Roll 1989 as Ext-D; (5) certified copy of the E/Roll 1997 as Ext-E; (6) certified copy of the E/Roll 2005 as Ext-F; (7) certified copy of the E/Roll 2010 as Ext-G; (8) certificate of G.P. Secretary of Vill: 72 no. Baghmarachar as Ext-H; (9) certificate of Gaonburha of village: 3 no. Baghmarachar as Ext-I, (10) certificate of Gaonburha of village: 1, 2 and 3 no. Alopati Non K. as Ext-J; and (11) an affidavit as Ext-K. 7. In support of her defence, the petitioner had examined 3 (three) other witnesses, namely, Amzad Ali Khan, Gaonbura of no.3 Baghmarachar as DW-2. His evidence was recorded in the question answer form. He has exhibited the Gaonbura’s Certificate issued by him in favour of the petitioner as Ext-1, and his signature therein was exhibited as Ext-1(1). The petitioner has also examined Ikramul Hussain as DW-3, who is the In-Charge Gaonbura, as his father Abul Hussain, who was the Gaonbura was ill. His evidence was recorded in the question answer form. He has exhibited the Gaonbura’s Certificate issued by him in favour of the petitioner as Ext-1, and his signature therein was exhibited as Ext-1(1). The petitioner has also examined Ikramul Hussain as DW-3, who is the In-Charge Gaonbura, as his father Abul Hussain, who was the Gaonbura was ill. His father was the Gaonbura of 1, 2 and 3 no. Alopati Non K. bearing Charge No.17 (Baghbar Revenue Circle). The said DW-3 has exhibited his father’s identity card as Ext-2, and the signature of the Circle Officer and his father’s signature therein were exhibited as Ext-2(1) and 2(2). He has also exhibited the order dated 22.09.2016, issued by the Circle Officer as Ext-3 and the signature of the Circle Officer therein as Ext-3(1). He has also exhibited the certificate issued by his father as Ext-J, and his father’s signature therein as Ext-J(1). The said that DW-2 and DW-3 were examined through the Court in the form of questions answers. The petitioner has also examined her father, namely, Akbar Ali as DW-4, was cross-examined by the A.G.P. 8. The learned Tribunal had discarded the evidence of the petitioner on the ground that the basic defence in the written statement was not properly taken and therefore, the proof could only be tendered of facts which were pleaded and therefore, the veracity of the Ext. Nos.A to K were discarded. The residency certificate issued by the Gaonbura, being Ext-1 was discarded on the ground that the Gaonbura had not certified and stated about the period of inhabitancy of the petitioner and moreover, the said exhibit also contained the State Emblem, which has rendered the said document inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, Ext-J was also discarded, which was a certificate by Gaonbura on the ground that the said certificate only established the name of the husband of the petitioner and did not prove the citizenship. The evidence of DW-4 was discarded as the said witness could not disclose the date of birth and the present age of the petitioner and he could not say about the date of her marriage and also failed to establish where the petitioner was presented as residing. The evidence of DW-4 was discarded as the said witness could not disclose the date of birth and the present age of the petitioner and he could not say about the date of her marriage and also failed to establish where the petitioner was presented as residing. However, as no documentary evidence was tendered towards the proof of age etc., it was held that the DW-4 could not prove any facts and moreover, as he could not give the date of his birth and had no knowledge from where his grandfather had come into the said village and ignorance of the name of his grandmother, the said evidence was rejected as the DW-4 had casted his vote at the age of 18 years, which is not a lawful age of casting vote. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that she is a citizen of India and she was born out of lawful citizen of the country. 9. It may also be stated that in order to explain the discrepancy in the spelling of the name of the grandfather, the petitioner had also exhibited an affidavit as Ext-K, which was discarded on the ground that an affidavit was not a lawful evidence to explain the discrepancy in the age. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal expressed its opinion that the petitioner had failed to show that she is a citizen of India and it was held that the petitioner was a foreigner/illegal migrant who had entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal had mechanically examined the evidence and failed to consider the fact that the DW-4, while exhibiting his EPIC has established his own identity. Moreover, the petitioner having expressed that the DW-4 was her father and DW-4 had accepted that the petitioner, who was DW-1 was his eldest daughter, the non-consideration of Ext-L as well as the evidence showing relationship between the petitioner and the DW-4, the impugned opinion stands vitiated. 11. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has submitted that the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal in embarking on cross-examination of DW-1 and to take evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 in a question answer form is highly irregular and it is submitted that it amounts to evidence being created by the learned Tribunal. 11. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has submitted that the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal in embarking on cross-examination of DW-1 and to take evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 in a question answer form is highly irregular and it is submitted that it amounts to evidence being created by the learned Tribunal. She has submitted that appropriate recourse to the learned Tribunal was to either adjourn the matter so that the evidence-in-chief could be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, the learned A.G.P. could cross-examine the witnesses. Moreover, it is submitted that DW-2 and DW-3, being the Gaonburas, ought to have been examined by the petitioner on whose call the said witnesses were brought for examination. Therefore, it is submitted that the examination of the DW-2 and DW-3 by the learned Tribunal had also vitiated the proceedings and therefore, on these accounts, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters has submitted that in the event the Court is not satisfied with the impugned opinion and is inclined to accept the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State Govt. be also be granted liberty to make a prayer to seek recall of DW-1, 2 and 3 for cross-examination after DW-2 and 3 are examined in accordance with law. 12. The learned standing counsel for FT matters has also expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which DW-2 and DW-3 had been examined through Court in a printed question and handwritten answer format. While reiterating that the evidence of the witnesses called by a party must be recorded as per the examination-in-chief by the concerned party producing the evidence, she has also pointed out that in the event the A.G.P. was not present, it was incumbent on part of the learned Tribunal to record in the order sheet the absence of the A.G.P. and it would have been appropriate to bring it to the notice of the authorities that the Tribunal is functioning without an A.G.P. on the dates when witnesses were examined. 13. We are also surprised by the fact that while recording the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3, the examination-in-chief were done by the learned Tribunal. However, the same is in a printed question form, which has been filled up with the answer. 13. We are also surprised by the fact that while recording the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3, the examination-in-chief were done by the learned Tribunal. However, the same is in a printed question form, which has been filled up with the answer. The DW-2 had also exhibited his certificate as Ext-1, and his signature as Ext-1(i). The DW-3 has exhibited his father's identity card as Ext-2, and also exhibited the signature of the Circle Officer as well as his father's signature as exhibit 2(1) and 2(2) respectively. The order dated 22.09.2016, issued by the Circle Officer, appointing him as in-charge Gaonbura, is exhibited as Ext-3, and the signature of the Circle Officer is marked as exhibit 3(1). However, the said Ext. Nos.2 and 3 are also not found referred at all in the impugned opinion. 14. Be that as it may, as already been indicated above, although DW-4 had exhibited this EPIC as Ext-L, it ought to have been referred in the final opinion notwithstanding that the evidence tended by way of an EPCI (Ext-L) would not have mattered at all. However, the Court is of the considered opinion that once an evidence is tendered, the documentary exhibits of whatever value may hold, has to be referred by the learned Tribunal in its opinion. On failure on part of the learned Tribunal to make a mention of an exhibited document vitiates the proceedings as it discloses non-application of judicial mind on the evidence tendered. 15. Therefore, it is evident that the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.6th, Barpeta had acted in a mechanical manner, without any application of the judicial mind as the said learned Member has not even referred to the exhibits as proved by the DW nos.3 and 4. 16. Therefore, the impugned opinion stands vitiated with non-application of mind and non-consideration of the entire evidence of the witnesses. 17. Therefore, the Court is inclined to set aside the opinion dated 09.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6th , Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 491/15. 18. Resultantly, the matter is remanded for a fresh decision by the said learned Tribunal in accordance with law. 19. 17. Therefore, the Court is inclined to set aside the opinion dated 09.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6th , Barpeta in F.T. Case No. 491/15. 18. Resultantly, the matter is remanded for a fresh decision by the said learned Tribunal in accordance with law. 19. In view of the forceful submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters about the manner in which the Tribunal has ventured to examine the DW-2 and 3 and to cross-examine DW-4, it is left open to the State to take a call as to whether they would be advised to make an appropriate prayer before the said learned Tribunal in connection with the manner in which evidence of DW-2, 3 and 4 were recorded. It is provided that when such prayer is made, the learned Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law. 20. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.6th, Barpeta on 28.02.2025. On the said date, the petitioner, by producing a certified copy of this Court, await further direction to be issued by the learned Tribunal. As the date of appearance is fixed by this Court, there would be no requirement for the learned Tribunal to issue any notice of appearance to the petitioner. 21. Registry shall send back the Tribunal records expeditiously. 22. Before parting with the records, in light of the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters, having noted that the learned Tribunal has recorded that DW-4 was cross-examined by the A.G.P., non- recording of the presence and/or absence of A.G.P. when DW-1, 2 and 3 were examined and/or cross-examined, there are reasons to presume that the said learned Tribunal had been functioning in the absence of A.G.P. 23. Therefore, the learned standing counsel for the FT Matters shall send a downloaded copy of this to the concerned authorities in the Home Department for introspection by the State as to the functioning of the Foreigners Tribunals. On earlier occasions also, the Court has expressed that it is high time that the State should take a call as to whether they want training and/or refresher training programs for the learned Foreigners Tribunals as well as for the A.G.P.’s attached to those Tribunals. We leave the same to the wisdom of the State. 24. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.