WP(C) 2696/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 20/2/2 007 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Diphu, in case No. FT 169/06(T) h olding the petitioner to be a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (hereafte r referred to as the Act) and the consequential order No. DPU(B)/Q.I./77/2007 da ted 19/5/2007 of the Superintendent of Police, Karbi Anglong District, Diphu, As sam, ordering her to quit the territories of India is under challenge in the ins tant proceeding. 2. I have heard Mr. MU Mondol, learned Counsel for the petitioner a nd Mr. H. Rahman, learned State Counsel. None appears on behalf of the Union of India. 3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that she is an Indian citizen by birth being born at Rahman Colony, Dharamnala Road, in Diphu Town, Karbi Angl ong District of Assam. She having lost her parents at infancy grew up under the care and guardianship of one Abdur Rahman. She was thereafter married to one Abd ul Mallik who deserted her about 20 years back whereafter she remarried one Imam uddin Ansari of the same place. Her husband is originally from the District of C hapra in Bihar. The name of her adoptive father Abdur Rahman figured in the vote rs’ list of 1966 for No. 19 Bokajan Assembly Constituency of Assam. He is a perm anent resident of Karbi Anglong District having immovable property. The name of her earlier husband was also enrolled in the voters’ list of 1989 for No. 19. Di phu (S.T.) Legislative Assembly Constituency. He also possessed patta land under periodic lease covered by Dag No. 130/336 and Patta No. 121 under Jamunapur Mou za in the same District. Her present husband is a businessman by profession havi ng a shop under licence No. 1/DPU/796 dated 10/9/1978. Her name also figured in the voters’ list of 1997 for No. 19 Diphu (ST) LAC though therein her husband’s name was wrongly reflected as Imam Ali instead of Imamuddin. 4. The reference case No. 102/03 was registered against her with th e IMDT Tribunal, Diphu, which was eventually transferred to the Foreigners Tribu nal (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal) and was registered as FT 169/06(T) i n which on receiving notice thereof she appeared. By the impugned judgment and o rder she has been declared to be a foreigner under the Act. By the impugned orde r dated 19/5/2007 of the Superintendent of Police (B), Karbi Anglong, Diphu, she has been directed to leave India. The petitioner has insisted that the determin ation made by the learned Tribunal is patently illegal being against the weight of the evidence and recorded facts. The quit India notice is also in contraventi on of section 6(A)(3) and 18 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 5. Mr. Mondol has emphatically urged that it being explicit from th e evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal that the petitioner was a citizen of India by birth, the finding that she is a foreigner having entered Assam fro m Bangla Desh on or after 25/3/1971 is perverse and, therefore, the impugned jud gment and order is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Counsel has urged that even if the conclusion of the learned Tribunal is sustainable in law and on facts, the petitioner is entitled to have herself registered under section 18 of the Citizenship Act and, therefor e, the quit India order is per se illegal and inoperative in law. 6. The learned State Counsel as against this has argued that the le arned Tribunal having arrived at its conclusion on an exhaustive analysis of the materials on record, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is wa rranted, the petitioner having failed to adduce any additional material to displ ace the same. The determination that the petitioner is a foreigner being a findi ng of fact, this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review would not re-appraise the evidence to substitute its view for that of the learned Tribuna l. 7. It is manifest from the judgment and order under challenge that the complainant State had examined one witness namely the Enquiry Officer, Sub-I nspector of Police (B), Shri Dhiren Ch. Das who had conducted an investigation i nto the facts preceding submission of the enquiry report, Exhibit 2. In defence, the petitioner has examined herself and two other witnesses namely Smt. Bulu De vi and Ismail Seikh apart from producing a certified copy of the voters’ list of 19. Diphu (S.T.) Legislative Assembly Constituency, Exhibit A, containing her n ame and that of her husband as voters from Dharamnala Village within Diphu Town. The complainant State’s assertion that the petitioner had entered Assam from th e specified territory i.e. Bangla Desh on or after 25/3/1971 without any valid a uthority and had been illegally continuing at Rahman Colony within Diphu Police Station was sought to be substantiated by the evidence of the Police Officer as above and the enquiry report Exhibit 2. The said witness testified that being or dered by the SP(B), Karbi Anglong District (order being Exhibit 1), he made an e nquiry into the citizenship/nationality of the petitioner during which he visite d her residence and that of two other inhabitants of the locality named Oheda Be gum and Abdul Mannan. According to the witness during the enquiry/investigation, the petitioner could not produce any document in proof of her Indian citizenshi p and that the informations gathered by him revealed that the petitioner was a f oreigner, i.e. a resident of village and P.S. Baragaon in the District of Noakha li of Bangladesh and that she had entered Assam after 1977 whereafter she had be en residing in Rahman Colony in Diphu Town in Karbi Anglong District. 8. To the contrary the petitioner reiterated her version as pleaded in the instant petition and noticed hereinabove. She proved the certified copy of the voters’ list, Exhibit A, of 1997 containing her name as a voter of the No . 19. Diphu (S.T.) Legislative Assembly Constituency. Her other witness, Smt. Bu lu Devi deposed that she knew the petitioner from her childhood days. Her witnes s Ismail Seikh, however, conceded to have seen the petitioner at Diphu since 198 0. 9. The learned Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence adduced , accepted the case of the complainant State acting on the testimony of its witn ess and the enquiry report, Exhibit 2. It discarded the evidence of the petition er and her witnesses as unconvincing. While recording the said finding, the lear ned Tribunal recorded the omission on the part of the petitioner to produce witn esses from the family of Abdur Rahman to corroborate her claim of having been re ared up by him. It also noticed her failure to produce contemporaneous documents like voters list, land documents etc in authentication of her assertions. It wa s of the view that the State having prima facie established through the evidence of its witness that the petitioner had entered Assam from Bangladesh after 25/3 /1971 without any legal authority, it was her burden to prove the contrary and t hat she failed to discharge the same. 10. On an analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties as minuted by the learned Tribunal, I do not feel persuaded to hold that the determination made by it is either illogical, absurd or pre-posterous to interfere therewith in the exercise of this Court’s writ jurisdiction. No perversity as such is disc ernible in the assessment of the materials on record. The documents appended to this petition namely a copy each of Tauzi Bahi paying receipt in favour of Abdur Rahman, voters list of 1989 of No. 19 Bokajan Assembly Constituency of Assam co ntaining his name, voters’ list of 1989 for No. 19. Diphu (S.T.) Legislative Ass embly Constituency containing the name of her first husband Abdul Malik, land ce rtificate in his name, business licence of her present husband Md. Imamuddin Ans ari and voters’ list of 1997 for the No. 19 Diphu Legislative Assembly Constitue ncy displaying her name as the voter, therefore, are of no determinative relevan ce in the face of the other evidence alluded hereinabove. The impugned judgment and order, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 11. The above notwithstanding in term of section 6(A)(iii) and secti on 18 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the petitioner is entitled to get herself re gistered in accordance therewith. It would thus be open for her t o approach the registering authority contemplated in the above statutory provisions for the sa id purpose. In case such an application is made by the petitioner within six wee ks herefrom, the registering authority would deal with her application as requir ed under the above provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and pass orders as d eemed fit and proper. For this period of six weeks the impugned order dated 19/5 /2007 of the SP, Karbi Anglong, would remain in abeyance. The petition stands cl osed in the above terms. No costs.