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