JUDGMENT : ( M. Nandi, J.) Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. J. Sarma, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent. 2. The petitioner has preferred an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned opinion/order dated 06.03.2020, th passed by the Foreigners Tribunal 10 , Dhubri in F.T. Case No.10/TMH/1211/2018 arising out of “D” Voter Case No.43/D/07 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth and is a permanent resident of village - Uttar Kachakhana under Tamarhat P.S in the district of Dhubri, Assam. The petitioner was born and brought up at village – Belguri Part I under Agomoni Police station in the district of Dhubri. The name of the petitioner’s grandfather is late Ainulla @ Aynullah Munsi. The father’s name of late Ainulla Munsi is late Gamiruddin. Late Gamiruddin got two sons Ainulla Munsi and Farid Uddin Sarkar. The petitioner’s grandfather had two wives - Shabijan Bibi and late Moina Bibi @ Moina Bewa. The name of the petitioner’s father is late Safiar Ali @ Sopior Rahman @ Safior Rahman @ Safiyar Ali who expired on 31.05.2019 and mother’s name is Jarina Bibi who is alive and they are the citizens of India by birth. 4. The petitioner got married to one Karim Baksh Sk, S/o late Sona Uddin Sk of Village – Uttar Kachakhana about 20 years back and both the petitioner and her husband used to work in the brick industry in different places of Assam to maintain their livelihood. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner’s grandfather appeared in the voter list of 1966 along with her step grandmother of Village- Belguri Part I. The name of the petitioner’s father along with her step grandmother appeared in the voter list of 1977 from the same village. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner’s grandfather appeared in the voter list of 1966 along with her step grandmother of Village- Belguri Part I. The name of the petitioner’s father along with her step grandmother appeared in the voter list of 1977 from the same village. The name of the petitioner’s parents appeared in the voter list of 1997 and the name of petitioner’s parents along with petitioner’s brother also appeared in the voter list of 2005 under same LAC i.e. 25 Golakganj LAC and their names also appeared in the subsequent voter lists. The name of the petitioner appeared in the voters’ lists of 2007, 2010 and 2015 along with her husband and mother-in- law under Kumarganj LAC of village - Uttar Kachakhana. However, in the voter list of 2015 against the name of the petitioner mark “D” has been inserted. 6. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and submitted written statement with documents. The petitioner examined herself as DW-1 and her uncle Mohi Uddin Ahmed @ Mohiruddin Sk as DW-2. School Headmistress of Belguri L.P School examined as DW-3. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties vide order dated 06.03.2020 declared the petitioner as foreigner of post 25.03.1971, who entered into India without any valid documents. 7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from voter lists of her parents and grandparents, the petitioner also submitted some other documents to prove her citizenship before the Tribunal i.e. school certificate issued by the Headmistress of Belguri L.P School wherein the petitioner studied up to class II. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s grandfather had landed properties at village – Belguri Part I vide Khatian No.179 which was issued on 30.03.1962. The petitioner’s father inherited the said property and as such, the concerned authority issued Periodic Khiraj Patta vide Patta No.219. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Secretary Sindurai Gaon Panchayat, Dhubri issued a certificate certifying that the petitioner is a daughter of Safiyar Ali and she got married to one Karim Baksa Sheikh of village - Uttar Kachakhana of Dhubri district. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Secretary Sindurai Gaon Panchayat, Dhubri issued a certificate certifying that the petitioner is a daughter of Safiyar Ali and she got married to one Karim Baksa Sheikh of village - Uttar Kachakhana of Dhubri district. 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after her marriage, the name of the petitioner appeared in the voter list of 2005 along with her husband and due to appearance of her name in the voter list with her husband, the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), Golakganj LAC having doubt about the citizenship of the petitioner directed the concerned authority to verify it. 11. The verifying officer while trying to verify the name of the petitioner, he did not find the petitioner in the address at the relevant time as the petitioner was working in a brick industry at Rangia, Kamrup along with her husband. When the verifying officer having not found the petitioner as such in the format for verification report stated that “ not found as they are working in a brick field as reported by the neighbor of that locality” . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, without filling up the respective column of the format for verification report, forwarded the same to the ERO, Golakganj LAC and accordingly the ERO forwarded the verification report to the S.P, Dhubri to take step for deciding the question of citizenship of the petitioner. 12. It is further submitted that the Foreigners’ Tribunal ought to have verified the report about suspicion of the petitioner as illegal migrant but the learned Tribunal instead of doing the same, issued notice to the petitioner which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper. In such type of case, the Tribunal should have dismissed the reference at the threshold as has been held in the case of Moslem Mondal reported in (2013) 1 GLT 809 . Therefore, the impugned proceeding and the order passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 13. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has to be fair and proper investigation by the Investigating Agency before making a reference to the Tribunal. The reference made by the referral authority also cannot be mechanical. 13. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has to be fair and proper investigation by the Investigating Agency before making a reference to the Tribunal. The reference made by the referral authority also cannot be mechanical. The referral authority has to apply his mind on the materials collected by the I.O during investigation and thereafter, make reference to the Tribunal that there are grounds for making such reference. In the instant case, the referral authority straight away forwarded the reference without verifying the grounds of existence that the petitioner is a foreigner and the Tribunal also without verifying the records issued notice and subsequently declared the petitioner as a foreigner by violating the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned proceeding as well as the impugned opinion of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. 14. It is also contended that the enquiry report does not state which of the stream the petitioner belongs either before 01.01.1966 or between 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 or after 25.03.1971. But the learned Tribunal while issuing notice specifying that the petitioner has entered into Assam after 24.03.1971, which is not acceptable and exceeded its jurisdiction and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on receipt of the notice, the petitioner categorically stated in her written statement as well as evidence both oral and documentary that she is the daughter of Safiar Ali @ Sopior Rahman and Jarina Bibi and granddaughter of Ainullah Munsi having birth place at village - Belguri Part I under Agomoni PS in the district of Dhubri and got married with Karim Baksh Sk of Village – Uttar Kachakhana under Tamarhat P.S. However, the state authority neither denied the above facts of evidence of the petitioner nor give evidence in rebuttal which amounts to admission that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth but the learned Tribunal without applying judicial mind illegally and arbitrarily declared the petitioner as an illegal migrant which is not sustainable in law. 16. The last limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal without supplying the copy of the main grounds of the case issued the notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is a foreigner. 16. The last limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal without supplying the copy of the main grounds of the case issued the notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is a foreigner. The Tribunal is required to issue notice together with a copy of main grounds alleged to be foreigner of concerned person which is mandatory as per clause 3 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and in terms of paragraph 98 in Moslem Mondal case (supra). Hence, the impugned opinion of the learned Tribunal is perverse and the same is required to be modified. 17. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following case laws – a) (2024) INSC 511 (Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim Vs. State of Assam) b) (2013) 1 GLT 941 (Abdul Khalique Vs. Union of India and Ors.) c) (2020) 1 GLT 330 ( Motior Rahman Vs. Union of India and Ors.) d) (2022) O Supreme (GAU) 1329 ( Karim Ali Vs. Union of India and Ors.) e) (2021) 3 GLT 12 (Sona Kha @ Sona Khan Vs. Union of India and Ors.) 18. By referring the judgment of WPC 775/2024 (Sukjan Nessa Vs. Union of India and Ors.) , Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel, FT matters has submitted that a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not. Therefore, the relevant facts are especially within the knowledge of the petitioner and accordingly, the burden of proving citizenship rests absolutely upon the proceedee, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872 and this is mandated u/s 9 of the aforesaid Act, 1946. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to discharge her burden. It is also submitted that rebuttal evidence is not mandatory in every case and would be given only, if necessary. It is also contended that the evidence of the proceedee has to be cogent, relevant which inspires confidence and acceptable and only thereafter, the question of adducing rebuttal evidence may come in. 19. Mr. Sarma has also submitted that merely because the evidence adduced has not been rebutted will not give any sanctity to an inadmissible evidence relied upon by the petitioner. In this regard, Mr. 19. Mr. Sarma has also submitted that merely because the evidence adduced has not been rebutted will not give any sanctity to an inadmissible evidence relied upon by the petitioner. In this regard, Mr. Sarma has relied on the decision of this Court vide State of Assam and Anr. Vs. Ohab Ali (WPC No.2641/2017). On this point of rebuttal evidence, Mr. Sarma has also referred to the decision of this Court in Rukia Begum Vs. Union of India and Ors. vide WPC No.6344/2016) 20. By relying on the judgment of Bijay Das Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2018) 3 GLT 118, Mr. Sarma has pointed out that mere filing of written statement and the oral testimony are not sufficient to prove the citizenship of a person, as necessary documentary evidence is required to be proved in support of the oral evidence. In the present case, apart from oral evidence, no other documentary evidence has been relied on or proved to show that the present petitioner is the daughter of late Safiar Ali. 21. Mr. Sarma has also submitted that the document has to be appreciated as a whole which has been clearly discussed in the case of Basiron Nessa Vs. Union of India and Ors. vide (2018) 1 GLT 372 22. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records of the Tribunal, it reveals that the petitioner has claimed that she is the daughter of Safiar Ali @ Sopior Rahman @ Safior Rahman @ Safiyar Ali and Jarina Bibi. To prove her lineage with her projected parents, the petitioner has produced voter list of 1977 vide Ext.B , which reflects the name of Sopior Rahman, S/o Ainullha, aged about 23 years. 23. The subsequent documents is 1997 voter list which shows the period of time in between 20 years. No other documents have been produced by the petitioner that during such period of 20 years, the petitioner along with her parents have been residing in any parts of Assam. 24. In 1997 voter list, the name of Safior Rahman, S/o Ainullah Munshi and Jarina Bibi, W/o Safior Rahman have been appeared. As per statement of DW-2, Safior Rahman died on 31.05.2019. In between 22 years i.e. from 1997-2019, the petitioner has failed to show her existence along with her parents in Indian soil by producing any document or adducing any evidence. As per statement of DW-2, Safior Rahman died on 31.05.2019. In between 22 years i.e. from 1997-2019, the petitioner has failed to show her existence along with her parents in Indian soil by producing any document or adducing any evidence. DW-2 though claimed to be the uncle of the petitioner but the petitioner has not introduced him in her written statement. It is not clarified why mother of the petitioner though alive has not been stepped into the witness box. 25. Regarding enquiry report, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not found in her address i.e. village - North Kachakhana, P.O - Paglahat as she was working in a brick field along with her husband Karim Baksha Sk as reported by the neighbor of the locality. Thereafter, Superintendent of Police, Dhubri referred the matter to the Tribunal with a report that the petitioner, W/o Karim Baksha Sk of village - North Kachakhana, P.S- Golakganj, District – Dhubri which was received from ERO (Electoral Registration Officer) of 25 Golakganj LAC deciding her nationality status under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the rules made thereunder. 26. As per report of ERO, there was reasonable doubt whether the petitioner is a citizen of India or not. Hence, this case was forwarded to the Tribunal for adjudication. However, it is also reflected from the forwarding report to learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Dhubri that the case is still pending due to non-cooperation of the “D” voter concerned. 27. It may be noted that though the opinion of the Enquiry Officer may not be binding to the Referral Authority, if the Referral Authority wishes to take a contrary view to the finding of the Enquiry Authority, the Referral Authority must indicate the reasons with supporting materials to overrule such a finding of the Enquiry Authority and take the contrary view that the proceedee is not an Indian but an illegal migrant. 28. A reference of the Tribunal is to be made under Order 2 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The Tribunal is to give its opinion when a reference is made whether the person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of Foreigners Act, 1964. 28. A reference of the Tribunal is to be made under Order 2 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The Tribunal is to give its opinion when a reference is made whether the person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of Foreigners Act, 1964. Thus, it would imply that unless there is a dispute or suspicion or doubt about the nationality of a person, the question of referring as to whether he/she is or is not a foreigner to a Foreigners Tribunal does not arise. The reference can be made only when it is the case of the Enquiring Authority or the State that a person is suspected to be an illegal immigrant which is denied by the concerned person and thus, there is a doubt or dispute about the nationality of the person. However, in the present case, no doubt about the nationality of the petitioner has been raised on conclusion of the enquiry. 29. In this regard, we may refer to the case of Moslem Mondal (Supra) , as regards the importance of fair trial and fair investigation which apply to a proceeding relating to a doubtful/alleged illegal migrant, where it was held as follows: “93. The right to get a fair trial is a basic fundamental and human right. Any procedure which comes in the way of a party in getting a fair trial would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Fair trial also includes a fair investigation. The concept of fair investigation and fair trial assumes much importance in the matter of detection and deportation of foreigners under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1964 Order as well as the 2012 Amendment Order, because of the nature of proceeding as well as the burden cast on the person who is suspected to be a foreigner to prove that he is not a foreigner, by Section 9 of the 1946 Act. The citizenship right is to be jealously protected. The right under Article 21 of the Constitution is available to all persons to protect his life and personal liberty and hence even the right of a non- citizen to have fair investigation, trial as well fair procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 94. The right under Article 21 of the Constitution is available to all persons to protect his life and personal liberty and hence even the right of a non- citizen to have fair investigation, trial as well fair procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 94. The Apex Court in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (supra) has opined that the right to get a fair trial is a basic fundamental/human right and denial of fair trial violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (supra), commonly known as "Best Bakery Case", the Apex Court giving emphasis on the principle of fair trial, has opined that the just application of its principles in substance is to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice. It has also been opined that the concept of fair trial entails the familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and society, and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. It has also been opined that a trial which is primarily aimed at ascertaining the truth has to be fair to all concerned. It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning a Nelson's eye to the needs of society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Public interest in the proper administration of justice must be given as much importance, if not more, as the interests of the individual accused. While dealing with the role of the Court, the Apex Court observed that the courts have a vital role to play. Its role is to discover, vindicate and establish the truth and hence the trial should be a search for the truth and not about over technicalities. The Apex Court further observed that the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine and he must have active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion to find out the truth and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community. 95. The Apex Court further observed that the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine and he must have active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion to find out the truth and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community. 95. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (5) (supra), the Apex Court opined that every State has a constitutional obligation and duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens, which is the fundamental requirement for observance of the rule of law. There cannot be any deviation from this requirement because of any extraneous factors like caste, creed, religion, political belief or ideology. The Apex Court further opined that the fair trial consists not only in technical observance of frame and forms of law, but also in recognition and just application of its principles in substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice. In Samadhan Dhudaka Koli (supra), the Apex Court has reiterated its view that the prosecution must also be fair to the accused. Fairness in investigation as also trial is a human right of an accused. In Himanshu Singh Sabharwal (supra), the Apex Court reiterating the earlier view, has further opined that the fair trial is inherent in the concept of due process of law and the fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 984 , the Apex Court has reiterated that fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to observance of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution and hence though the State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in the society, a victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation. In National Human Rights Commission (supra) commonly known as Godhra Riot Case, the Apex Court has reiterated the requirement of having fair investigation and the trial. 96. In National Human Rights Commission (supra) commonly known as Godhra Riot Case, the Apex Court has reiterated the requirement of having fair investigation and the trial. 96. One of the contentions of the proceedees is that though the referral authority is required to make the reference to the Tribunal after making a fair investigation, no such proper and fair investigation is conducted and the police at their own whims and caprice gives a report, in some cases even without visiting the place where such proceedee resides and also without giving any opportunity to produce the relevant documents to substantiate that the proceedee is not a foreigner, and such report is accepted by the referral authority and accordingly the reference is made to the Tribunal, on the basis of which the reference is registered against such person. 97. Fair investigation and fair trial being the basic fundamental/human right of a person, which are concomitant to preservation of the fundamental right of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, there has to be a fair and proper investigation by the investigating agency before making a reference to the Tribunal. In such investigation the attempt has to be made to find out the person against whom the investigation is made, so that the person concerned is given the opportunity to demonstrate at that stage itself that he is not a foreigner. In case the person concerned could not be found out in the village where he is reported to reside or in the place where he ordinarily resides or works for gain, the investigating agency has to record the same in presence of the village elder or the village headman or any respectable person of the locality, which in turn would ensure visit of the investigating officer to the place where such person ordinarily resides or reported to reside or works for gain and making of an effort to find him out for the purpose of giving him the opportunity to produce the documents etc., if any, to demonstrate that he is not a foreigner. The investigating officer, as far as practicable, shall also obtain the signature or thumb impression of the person against whom such investigation is initiated, after recording his statement, if any, provided he makes himself available for that purpose. The investigating officer, as far as practicable, shall also obtain the signature or thumb impression of the person against whom such investigation is initiated, after recording his statement, if any, provided he makes himself available for that purpose. There are also instances where the person against whom such investigation is initiated, changes his place of residence, may be in search of livelihood or may be to avoid detection. To ensure proper investigation and also having regard to integrity and sovereignty of the nation, once investigation relating to the nationality status of a person starts he must inform the investigating agency in writing about the change of residence, if any, thereafter. In case such person has failed to intimate the investigating agency in writing the subsequent change of his place of residence, the investigating agency has to mention the same in his report with his opinion relating to the status of such person on the basis of materials collected at the place where he earlier resided. That will ensure a fair investigation and submission of a proper report on such investigation to the authority. Needless to say, such investigation need not be a detailed or an exhaustive one keeping in view the nature of the proceeding before the Tribunal and the object sought to be achieved. Hence it need not be equator with an investigation conducted in criminal cases.” 30. The Full Bench also emphasized that the reference cannot be made in a mechanical manner. In para-98 of Moselm Mondal (Supra), it was held as follows - “98. The reference by the referral authority also cannot be mechanical. The referral authority has to apply his mind on the materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation and make the reference on being satisfied that there are grounds for making such reference. The referral authority, however, need not pass a detailed order recording his satisfaction. An order agreeing with the investigation would suffice. The referral authority also, while making the reference, shall produce all the materials collected during investigation before the Tribunal, as the Tribunal is required prima facie to satisfy itself about the existence of the main grounds before issuing the notice to the proceedee. 99. An order agreeing with the investigation would suffice. The referral authority also, while making the reference, shall produce all the materials collected during investigation before the Tribunal, as the Tribunal is required prima facie to satisfy itself about the existence of the main grounds before issuing the notice to the proceedee. 99. Fair trial and reasonable opportunity required to be afforded to a proceedee also includes supply of the certified copy of any public document, including the copy of the relevant electoral rolls which has also been recognized by sub-section (2) of Section 6A of the 1955 Act as relevant document for the purpose of establishment of the citizenship, to the proceedee, whenever asked for, which may be necessary for the purpose of demonstrating by the proceedee that he is not a foreigner. Certified copies of such documents, if applied for, must be supplied promptly, otherwise, it may result in delay in disposal of the reference proceeding, as the proceedee in that case may ask for time, till such documents are made available to him. The same may also amount to denial of reasonable opportunity to the proceedee, as he may not be able to discharge his burden of proof that he is an Indian national, in the absence of such documents. Such delay in disposal of the proceeding would also be against national interest. The interest of justice, therefore, requires supply of the certified copies of such documents, that too promptly, whenever asked for." 31. Having regards the materials available in record and in the light of the observations made in the case of Moslem Mondal (supra) , we are of the view that, the proceeding initiated by the Tribunal cannot be sustained for the following reasons – a) There was no any specific finding by the Enquiring Authority that the petitioner is a foreigner migrated from the specific territory i.e. Bangladesh. b) Enquiring Authority specifically stated in the report that the petitioner was not available in her address as it was reported by their neighbor that she was working in a brick filed at the relevant time. b) Enquiring Authority specifically stated in the report that the petitioner was not available in her address as it was reported by their neighbor that she was working in a brick filed at the relevant time. c) Even if the Referral Authority in spite of the finding of the Enquiring authority decides to refer it to the Tribunal, it must give cogent reasons to justify the reference on account of the specific finding recorded by the Enquiring Authority against the person concerned which we find to be totally missing in the present case. The reference was thus mechanically made and suffers from non-application of mind. d) Even if the reference has been made by the Referral Authority contrary to the finding by the Enquiring authority, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to prima- facie specify itself about the existence of the ground for being referred to it. The Tribunal cannot mechanically act upon any reference without examining the materials on record. The reference made by the referral authority cannot be mechanical as held by this Court in the case of Moslem Mondal (supra). 32. On perusal of the proceeding of the Tribunal, we do not see any exercise being undertaken by the Tribunal that the Tribunal was prima-facie satisfy about the existence of main grounds on the doubtfulness of the nationality of the proceedee before issuing notice to the petitioner. 33. Therefore, keeping the aforesaid principles laid down in the case of Moslem Mondal (supra) , we have no other option but to hold that the Tribunal made an error in proceeding against the petitioner as there was no any specific finding arrived at by the Enquiry Authority that the petitioner is an illegal migrant. 34. We also hold that the reference made by the Referral Authority was mechanical and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. On these grounds, the opinion of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 35. Be that as it may, we are not entering into the merit of the case as far as the appreciation of evidence is concerned as we have already held that the initial proceeding itself is vitiated as there was no proper reference and in fact the reference was contrary to the finding of the inquiry report that the petitioner is suspected to be a foreigner based on the documents produced and examination of local witnesses. 36. 36. In the result, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned opinion th dated 06.03.2020, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal 10 , Dhubri in F.T. Case No.10/TMH/1211/2018. 37. It is made clear that the State is at liberty to further make an enquiry, if there is specific doubt against the petitioner that she is a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. 38. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 39. Transmit the case records to the Tribunal.