Gauhati High Court
Md. Abdul Sobur @ Abdur Sofur Sheikh @ Ar … vs Union Of India And 4 Ors on 11 June, 2025
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana, Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010047832025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1428/2025
MD. ABDUL SOBUR @ ABDUR SOFUR SHEIKH @ AR SAFUR SHEIKH
SON OF LATE ABDUL GAFUR SHEIKH,
VILLAGE- GASPARA, P.S.- DHUBRI,
P.O.- DHARMASALA, DISTRICT- DHUBRI,
ASSAM, PIN- 783325.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS,
SHASTRI BHAWAN, TILOK MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(BORDER)
DHUBRI
P.O.- DHUBRI
DISTRICT- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
4:THE STATE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/16
GUWAHATI-06.
5:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC
ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J ABEDIN, MR M Z RAHMAN,MR A HAI
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, NRC,SC, ECI,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 11.06.2025
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel appearing for the FT matters and
NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned
Standing Counsel for the ECI; Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC; and Mr. H.K.
Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam.
2. By filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice dated 08.01.2025, that was
issued in the proceedings of F.T. Case No. 5077/D/2011 by the learned
Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1, Dhubri as well as for quashing of the proceedings of
the said F.T. Case No. 5077/D/2011 with other consequential reliefs.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is in receipt a notice dated
08.01.2025, from the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1, Dhubri and accordingly,
on appearance, the petitioner had applied for certified copy of the LVO report by
Page No.# 3/16
filing a petition dated 27.01.2025 before the said learned Tribunal. The same
was not furnished as such, the petitioner submitted a petition before the said
learned Tribunal on 10.02.2025 and prayed for providing the certified copies of
the LVO report of which application was already made. Moreover, on
10.02.2025, the petitioner has also filed an application for dropping the
proceedings against him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the records of
the learned Tribunal was called for, he has perused the same and as per report
dated 05.02.2025, by the Enquiry Officer, it was stated therein that Md. Abdul
Sabur, son of Late Abdul Gafur was not a foreigner. Moreover, in his intimation
to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri and also opined
that the suspect was not a foreigner of 1966-71 stream, and stated that the
case may perhaps be dropped. Accordingly, it is submitted that there was no
reference at all, suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 24.03.1971
stream. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has cited the case of Santosh Das vs. Union of India & Ors. 2017 (2) GLT 1065 .
5. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the FT matters has submitted
that it is a well settled law that once a reference is made to the consent
Foreigners’ Tribunal, such a reference cannot be returned or dropped.
Accordingly, it is submitted that it was incumbent on the part of the learned
Tribunal to dispose of the reference. It is further submitted that as per the case
diary appended to the forwarding note of the Superintendent of Police(B),
Dhubri and the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer has merely
recorded statement of two persons and gave his opinion based on photo copy of
the voter list of 1966 and no other material was available in the record.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the entertaining of the reference by the learned
Page No.# 4/16
Tribunal was fully justified. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing
counsel for the FT matters has cited the case of Rukia Begum Barbhuiya @
Rukia Begum vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023 (4) GLT 1208 as well as the case
of Aziz Miya @ Md. Aziz Miya vs. Union of India & Ors. 2023(4) GLT 246.
6. It would be appropriate to quote the paragraphs 11 and 12 of the case of
Aziz Miya (supra). It would also be appropriate to quote paragraphs 10 to 13 of
the case of Rukia Begum Barbhuiya (supra).
7. The paragraphs 11 and 12 of the case of Aziz Miya (supra) are quoted
below-
“11. A reading of the provisions of Clause 2 of the Foreigners (Tribunal)
Orders, 1964 as indicated above also leads to a conclusion that the report
of the investigating authority that may have been submitted as to whether
the suspected person is a foreigner or not would be merely indicative in
nature and cannot be said to have attained a finality on the status of the
suspected person as to whether he is a foreigner. From such point of view,
we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. R Ali learned counsel for
the petitioner that as because the inquiring authority in the instant case
had given a report that the petitioner is not a foreigner, therefore, the
Superintendant of Police (Border) did not have any jurisdiction to make a
reference to the Tribunal for an opinion as to whether he is a citizen or
not and accordingly the reference itself made is a defective reference
which is required to be returned back.
11. The concept of returning back the reference is being submitted by
placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in
Monowara Khatun (supra). The relevant paragraph in Monowara Khatun
(supra) had been provided as abstracted:-
‘”In the light of the above position, we feel that Tribunal ought to
have the returned the reference back to the referral authority, i.e.,
Superintendant of Police (Border), Dhubri. Notice issued by the
Tribunal was apparently contrary to the reference made.
Page No.# 5/16
Though this Court has clarified that if Tribunal finds a reference to be
contrary to the materials on record or finds the reference to be faulty,
it should remand the matter back to the referral authority for making
a fresh reference but in the instant case, we find from the affidavit of
the Director General of Police, Assam dated 18.06.2016 that report of
the Enquiry Officer as well as endorsement of the Superintendant of
Police (Border), Dhubri were made after proper application of mind.
In such circumstances, without entering into merits, we feel that
impugned oder passed by the Tribunal dated 14.03.2016 cannot be
sustained and is accordingly set aside.
Writ petition is disposed of
Registry to send down the LCR forthwith and inform the concerned
Foreigners Tribunal, Superintendant of Police (Border) and Deputy
Commissioner for taking necessary follow-up steps.
A copy of this order may also be furnished to learned Standing
Counsel, Election Commission of India and State Coordinator, NRC,
Assam.”
12. In the matter of Monowara Khatun (supra), the factual situation was
that the Superintendant of Police (Border) after proper application of mind
on the report of the inquiring authority came to a conclusion that the
suspected person therein did not appear to be a foreigner. In other words,
it was the Superintendant of Police Superintendant of Police (Border) who
had arrived at such a conclusion and no finality was given to any report of
an inquiring authority. In the instant case, it is noticed that although the
report of the inquiring authority may be that the petitioner is not a
foreigner but the Superintendant of Police (Border) upon going through
the materials on record did not arrive at any conclusion that the petitioner
is not a foreigner which again also impliedly flows from his conduct that
he had made a reference to the Tribunal for rendering an opinion on the
said question.”
8. The paragraphs 10 to 13 of the case of Rukia Begum Barbhuiya (supra)
are quoted below-
Page No.# 6/16
“10. A reading of Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 makes it
discernible that the Central Government may by order, refer the question
as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of the
Foreigners Act 1946 to a Tribunal constituted for the purpose. The
statutory provision of Rule 2(1) makes it explicit that the reference to be
made by a Tribunal would be the question as to whether a person is or is
not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946. Section
2(a) of the Foreigners Act 1946 defines foreigner to mean a person who is
not a citizen of India. In other words, going by the meaning given to the
expression foreigner under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act 1946 a
reference made to the Tribunal would be as to whether the person
concerned is a citizen of India or he is not a citizen of India.
11. To understand the concept of being a citizen or a foreigner in respect
of such category of persons who entered the State of Assam from the
specified territory, which in other words, would require an appreciation of
the provisions of Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act 1955. Section 6 A of
the Citizenship Act 1955 is extracted as below:
“6A. Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam
Accord.–
(1) For the purposes of this section–
(a) “Assam” means the territories included in the State of Assam
immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985;
(b) “detected to be a foreigner” means detected to be a foreigner in
accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of
1946) and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 by a Tribunal
constituted under the said Order;
(c) “specified territory” means the territories included in Bangladesh
immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985;
(d) a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin, if he, or either of
his parents for any of his grandparents was born in undivided India;
Page No.# 7/16
(e) a person shall be deemed to have been detected to be a foreigner
on the date on which a Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners
(Tribunals) Order, 1964 submits its opinion to the effect that he is a
foreigner to the officer or authority concerned.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), all persons of
Indian origin who came before the 1st day of January, 1966 to Assam
from the specified territory (including such of those whose names were
included in the electoral rolls used for the purposes of the General Election
to the House of the People held in 1967) and who have been ordinarily
resident in Assam since the dates of their entry into Assam shall be
deemed to be citizens of India as from the 1st day of January, 1966.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), every person of
Indian origin who–
(a) came to Assam on or after the 1st day of January, 1966 but
before the 25th day of March, 1971 from the specified territory; and
(b) has, since the date of his entry into Assam, been ordinarily
resident in Assam; and
(c) has been detected to be a foreigner, shall register himself in
accordance with the rules made by the Central Government in this
behalf under section 18 with such authority (thereafter in this sub-
section referred to as the registering authority) as may be specified in
such rules and if his name is included in any electoral roll for any
Assembly or Parliamentary constituency in force on the date of such
detection, his name shall be deleted therefrom. Explanation.–In the
case of every person seeking registration under this sub-section, the
opinion of the Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals)
Order, 1964 holding such person to be a foreigner, shall be deemed to
be sufficient proof of the requirement under clause (c) of this
subsection and if any question arises as to whether such person
complies with any other requirement under this sub-section, the
registering authority shall,–
(i) if such opinion contains a finding with respect to such other
Page No.# 8/16
requirement, decide the question in conformity with such finding;
(ii) if such opinion does not contain a finding with respect to such
other requirement, refer the question to a Tribunal constituted under
the said Order hang jurisdiction in accordance with such rules as the
Central Government may make in this behalf under section 18 and
decide the question in conformity with the opinion received on such
reference.
(4) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall have, as from the date
on which he has been detected to be a foreigner and till the expiry of a
period of ten years from that date, the same rights and obligations as a
citizen of India (including the right to obtain a passport under the
Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and the obligations connected
therewith), but shall not be entitled to have his name included in any
electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency at any time
before the expiry of the said period of ten years.
(5) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be a
citizen of India for all purposes as from the date of expiry of a period of
ten years from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner.
(6) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8,–
(a) if any person referred to in sub-section (2) submits in the
prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed authority within
sixty days from the date of commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985, for year a declaration that he does not wish
to be a citizen of India, such person shall not be deemed to have
become a citizen of India under that subsection;
(b) If any person referred to in sub-section (3) submits in the
prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed authority within
sixty days from the date of commencement the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985, for year or from the date on which he has
been detected to be a foreigner, whichever is later, a declaration that
he does not wish to be governed by the provisions of that sub-section
and sub-sections (4) and (5), it shall not be necessary for such
Page No.# 9/16
person to register himself under sub-section (3).
Explanation.– Where a person required to file a declaration under
this sub-section does not have the capacity to enter into a contract,
such declaration may be filed on his behalf by any person competent
under the law for the time being in force to act on his behalf (7)
Nothing in sub-sections (2) to (6) shall apply in relation to any person
—
(a) who, immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985, for year is a citizen of India;
(b) who was expelled from India before the commencement of the
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, for year under the Foreigners
Act, 1946 (31 of 1946).
(8) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the provisions of
this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force.]”
12. A reading of the provisions of Section 6 A makes it explicit that it is a
special provision as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord
and the core provisions of Section 6 A are that a person who may have
entered the State of Assam from the specified territory prior to
01.01.1966 shall be deemed to be a citizen of India from the 1st day of
January, 1966. The further provision is that such persons who entered the
State of Assam from the specified territory after 01.01.1966, but before
25.03.1971 from the specified territory, and has been detected to be a
foreigner, shall register himself with the Foreigners Registering Authority
of the district concerned and upon having been registered shall be
debarred of any voting rights for a period of ten years, but otherwise
retaining all such other rights that a citizen of India may be bestowed with
under the provisions and further that upon expiry of the period of ten
years, even the voting rights would be restored back. In case of persons,
who had entered the State of Assam from the specified territory on or
after 25.03.1971, such persons are to be declared as foreigners.
13. In view of the provisions of Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act 1955,
Page No.# 10/16
Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964 would now have to be
understood that once a reference is made, the reference would be
whether the person concerned is or is not a foreigner, meaning thereby,
whether the person concerned is a foreigner, who had entered the Staten
of Assam from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971 or he is a
person who belongs to any of the other categories i.e., a person who
entered the State of Assam from the specified territory before 01.01.1966
or between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971. No other meaning can be
attributed to the reference under Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal
Order 1964 i.e. whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the
meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946. We further take note that even if a
reference is made by setting up a question whether the person had
entered the State of Assam from the specified territory between
01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971, the reference would have to be understood
to be a reference under Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners Tribunal Order 1964
i.e., as to whether he is a foreigner or not. If the reference is worded
whether the person concerned, is a person who had entered the State of
Assam from the specified territory between 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971, in
order to arrive at any such conclusion that the reference itself is faulty
inasmuchas, the decision of the Tribunal upon the materials on record
would be that the person concerned had entered the State of Assam from
the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971, in such circumstance, the
only situation that can be envisaged is that the Tribunal first arrives at a
conclusion of its own that the person concerned had entered the State of
Assam from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971, meaning
thereby that the reference itself had been answered by the Tribunal. After
having answered the reference, it would be an inconceivable situation that
merely because the reference is worded whether the person had entered
the State of Assam from the specified territory between 01.01.1966 and
25.03.1971 it has to be referred back to the referral authority to make a
fair reference now putting up a question whether the person concerned
had entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971. In such situation,
as the matter would have to be referred back only after a final decision
has been arrived at and now if the reference is again made with a
Page No.# 11/16
corrected expression in the questions framed, the same may lead to
further complications that the subsequent reference would be barred by
the principles of resjudicatainasmuchasit would be a subsequent reference
on the same issue between the same set of parties where an earlier
decision had already been arrived at. It is noticed that in Falani Bibi
(supra) the aforesaid aspect of the further implication of a corrected
reference being again made had not been gone into and from such point
of view, it can be said that the view taken therein would be per inquiriam
of the further consequences of a fresh reference being made.”
9. From a conjoint reading of the observation made by this Court in the case
of Rukia Begum Barbhuiya (supra) and Aziz Miya (supra), it is noticed that
Clause 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 requires that the
Competent Authority, by order, refer the question as to whether a person is or
not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Therefore, it is
the requirement of law that the prescribed referral authority being the
Superintendent of Police (Border) of the concerned district in the State of Assam
should make a reference before the learned Tribunal and refer the question
specifically as to whether the concerned person is or not a foreigner within the
meaning of Foreigners Act, 1946.
10. In the present case in hand, there is no reference at all by the
Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri to the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.
1, Dhubri as to whether the petitioner Md. Abdul Sabur is or not a foreigner
within the meaning of Foreigners Act, 1946.
11. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to quote the final report dated
05.02.2005 of the Sub-Inspector of police (name illegible) is extracted below-
“INTERROGATION REPORT ON FOREIGN NATIONAL
1. Name and parentage of the foreign national:- Md Abdul Sabur
S/o lt Abdul Gofur Sk
Page No.# 12/16
2. Age:- 49
3. Address in Bangladesh/Pakistan:- X
4. Address in India:- Gaspara
5. Place of birth:- Gaspara
6. Did he/she held any Pakistan/Bangladesh Passport?
If so, furnish particular of Passport and Visa:- X
7. Does he/she own any land/house in India ? If so, since
When? Furnish particulars of land & patta number:- X
8. If not in whose land/house is he/she staying now:- He is living with his
father
9. Profession:- cultivation
10. Did he/she previously used to come to India often/occasionally for
employment and then return home with seasonal earnings? If so, since
when?
11. Since when is he/she staying continuously in India: Since birth
12. Has he/she since moved the authority claiming Indian Citizenship? If so,
when and what concrete evidence does he/she produce in support?
13. Names with addresses of the other members of the family :-
(1) Parents-
(2) Wife- (illegible) Momate Bibi (W)
(3) Children- Rohan Ali (S) Maleke Bibi, Karim Ali
14. What is the plea of the foreign nationals? How did he come to India? Why
has he been staying in India leaving his native place?
15. What is the evidence available in regard to his nationality?
(a) Statement of witnesses:- His brother name Md Abdul Gofur Sk
appeared in the v/list of 1966 vide SL No 305 H/No-60 vill-186 Gaspara
(illegible)
(To be enclosed)
(b) Documentary evidence
Page No.# 13/16(Copy to be enclosed)
16. Is he a voter in India? If so, when did his name first appear in the Voters’
list?
17. Name with addresses of the witnesses from whom information in respect of
the foreign national is received.
(i) Md Joharuddin s/o lt Mohim Ali - 66 yr
(ii) Md Karim Ali s/o lt Jadu Ali - 60 yr
Inquiry Officer's Report
18. In this report Enquiry Officer should make specific remark of his findings
whether the person is a 1966-71 foreigner with reason.
19. Order of the Superintendent of Police – Whether reference is to be made to
the Tribunal for opinion or order re-enquiry on specific points or close the
case.
During my inquiry it appear in a prima facie manner that Md Abdul
Sabur S/o Lt Abdul Gofur Sk is not a foreign (sic. ought to have been
foreigner) of 1966-71 stream.
Sd/- S.I. Ajit(illegible)
5-2-05.”
12. The said report was placed before the Superintendent Police, Dhubri and
the following note has been made by the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri,
which is extracted below-
“Fdd. to the Foreigner’s Tribunal Dhubri with the intimation that the
suspect does not appear to be foreigner of 1966-71 stream.
Hence the case may perhaps be dropped.
Sd/-(illegible)
Superintendent of Police
Dhubri”
13. It is also noted that the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1
Dhubri, on receipt of the reference, acted in a cavalier manner and it appears
that this learned Member did not care to read the reference made before the
Page No.# 14/16
said learned Tribunal, which is not permissible for a quasi judicial authority, who
is deciding the fate of a person by declaring him/her to be a foreigner or an
Indian National, as the case may be. In this regard, the Court would refer to the
initial order passed by the learned Member Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1, Dhubri on
22.11.2022, which is extracted below-
“22.11.2022
Case record put up today. Seen the reference letter from Superintendent of
Police (B), Dhubri based on report of Electoral Registration Officer of the
……..the E.R.O. had the doubt on Citizenship of 2nd Party/O.P. Md. Abdul
Sabur.
So, there is a prima facia case against the 2 nd Party/ O.P. to be doubtful
illegal Migrant/Foreigners.
Hence processing is initiated.
Issue Notice to the 2nd Party/O.P. fix 02.01.2023 For S.R., App, of 2 nd
Party/O.P. and submission of Written Statement along with documents.”
14. In this case, there is no document on record of the learned Tribunal to
show that any reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border),
Dhubri based on report of the Electoral Registration Officer. Therefore, an
observation in the order dated 22.11.2022 that the reference was based on the
report of the ERO speaks volumes of total non-application of judicial mind.
15. In the same order dated 22.11.2022, learned Tribunal had recorded its
prime facie satisfaction that the petitioner was a doubtful illegal
migrant/foreigner. How that satisfaction had been arrived at is not disclosed. In
this case, there is a concurrent observation by the Enquiry Officer as well as the
Superintendent of Police, Dhubri that the petitioner does not appear to be a
foreigner. Therefore, it was incumbent on part of the learned Tribunal to at least
disclose in its order as to which document was relied upon to arrive at a prima
Page No.# 15/16
facie satisfaction that the petitioner was a doubtful illegal migrant/ foreigner.
16. In the case of Santosh Das v. Union of India, 2017 (2) GLT 1065 , this
Court had held that the Foreigners Tribunal gets its jurisdiction to render its
opinion only when a reference is made to it and it has been held that without a
reference being made, the Tribunal cannot exercise its jurisdiction to opine that
a person is or not a foreigner. Paragraph-16 thereof is quoted below:
“16. From a careful reading of Order 2(1), what is discernible is that a
reference is made to a Tribunal for its opinion whether a person is or is
not a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act,
1946. The Tribunal gets its jurisdiction to render its opinion only when a
reference is made to it. Without a reference being made, Tribunal cannot
exercise its jurisdiction to opine that a person is or is not a foreigner. It is
only when a reference is made as above that the Tribunal assumes
jurisdiction to render its opinion. Therefore, to our mind, Tribunal would
have to confine to the terms of the reference made to it and cannot go
beyond the same. Admittedly, in this case, reference was that petitioner
was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the
specified territory during the period 01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971. The
Tribunal was required to answer the reference either in favour of the State
or in favour of the proceedee. If the reference was to be answered in
favour of the State and it was answered rightly so by the Tribunal, the
natural corollary would be that petitioner is a foreigner belonging to the
01.01.1966 to 24.03.1971 stream. Therefore, the view taken by the
Tribunal that the Foreigners Act, 1946 or the Orders framed thereunder do
not bind it to the terms of the reference is not correct.”
17. In the present case in hand, the nature of remark made by the
Superintendent of Police, Dhubri has already been quoted hereinbefore. On a
reading of the said note, the only meaning that the said note conveys is that the
Superintendent of Police, Dhubri was merely intimating to the learned
Foreigners Tribunal that the petitioner is not a foreigner. Hence, there was no
Page No.# 16/16
reference at all to be registered as a proceeding against the petitioner.
18. As there is no reference by the referral authority i.e. Superintendent of
Police, Dhubri, there is no way that the learned Tribunal can provide to the
petitioner the grounds of suspecting him to be a foreigner, which is not only the
requirement as laid down in the case of State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal, 2013
(1) GLT 809 but also in the case of Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. The State
of Assam & Ors., (2024) 0 Supreme (SC) 575 that the grounds of suspecting the
proceedee to be a foreigner should be provided by the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the case cited by the learned Standing counsel for the FT matters
has no application in this case.
19. In view of the discussions above, the proceeding against the petitioner
before the Learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Dhubri is not found
sustainable as there was no valid reference made by the referral authority i.e.
Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, without which, reference would not be
maintainable.
20. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and the proceedings of F.T.
Case No. 5077/D/2011 stands quashed.
21. Registry shall return back the Tribunal records along with a copy of this
order to the Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Dhubri to be made a part of record.
22. Let a copy of this judgment and order be communicated to the
respondent No. 2 and 3.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant