WP(C) 1602/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 12.2.20 10 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, (Morigaon, Assam , rendere d in F.T(D) Case No. 1109/2007 declaring the petitioner herein to be a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) having determined him to have entered into Assam after 25.3.1971 from Banglades h. 2. I have heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, M rs. D. Sinha, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the res pondent No.4 as well as Mr. R.K.Bora, learned State counsel, for the remaining r espondents. 3. The pleaded version of the petitioner in short is that though he was born in 1948 at village Nadiya, P.S. Raumari, Dist. Kuriglam of East Pakist an he came to Assam with his father in his childhood days and thereafter settled at village Gargaon in the District of Goalpara, Assam. Thereafter they permane ntly settled in village No.182, Karupara of the same district and lived there f or long years. According to the petitioner, his father’s name was registered as a citizen of India under the provisions of Section (5)(i)(a)/(d) of the Citizens hip Act, 1955 by the S.D.O., Kokrajhar on 5.10.1963, whereafter he exercised his right of franchise his name being enlisted in the voter list of 1966 under Sl. No.161, House No.69 of 41 No Bijni Constituency at village No.182 , Kochpara, Bi jni in the District of Kokrajhar, Assam. The petitioner asserted that his father ’s name was also enrolled in the voter list of 1970. He claims that his name also appeared in the voters list of 1970 under Sl.No. 83, House No.24 of 41 No. Bijni Constituency under Goalpara District, Assam. According to him, his name wa s enlisted in the voters list of 1989 as well. In response to a notice in the af orementioned proceeding he filed a written statement narrating the above facts. He also examined himself. He produced amongst others certified copies of the vot ers lists. The official respondents examined one witness. Sri Paresh Hazarika, Enquiry Officer, who stated that while verifying the relevant documents of the p etitioner and his status on the basis thereof he found that he had illegally en tered into Assam after 1971 to settle at village Kuidal in the District of Morig aon and , therefore, was liable to be deported. 4. The learned Tribunal, on a consideration of the pleaded facts an d the evidence on record was of the view, that the voters list produced by the petitioner did not prove his claim that his father was a voter in the year 196 6. On a scrutiny of the said documents, the learned Tribunal was of the view th at the same reflected discrepancies in respect of the name and age of the petiti oner and his father and held that the same could not be construed to be a tes timony to disprove the charge brought against him. It also rejected the photoc opy of an affidavit submitted by him trying to explain the incongruence in the voters list on the ground that the same was not tenable in law. 5. Mr J. Ahmed, learned counsel has argued that a plain reading of the voters list of 1966 and the affidavit filed by him would establish that his father name had been registered as a voter of Sl.No. 138 in the Legislative Ass embly Constituency therein. Further the voter list of 1970 of the same constitue ncy having reflected the name of the petitioner as a voter, the learned tribunal erroneously came to a conclusion that he is a foreigner under the Act. 6. Mrs. D. Sinha, learned Central Government Counsel submitted tha t as the documents referred to by the petitioner, apparently contained contradi ctions vis-à-vis his identity as well as of his father, the learned tribunal wa s justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. The petitioner principally relies on the following voters lis t of No.41 Bijni Legislative Assembly Constituency. 1966 _____________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6___ 161 69 Radhacharan Das Late Kartik Ch.Das M 48 1970›››››››››››››››››››››››››_________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 83 24 Rajendra Roy Ramu M 55. 1970 _______________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 83 24 Rajendra Das Radha Charan M 25. 7. A plain reading of the voters list of 1966 reflects the name of the voter at serial No. 161 as Radhacharan Das, S/o. Late Kartik Ch.Das, age 48 years. The entries in the 2(two) voter lists of 1970 would disclose the name of voter at Sl.No.83 as Rajendra Roy, S/o. Ramu, age 55 years and Rajendra Das , S/o. Radha Charan, age 25 years. 8. These entries in the opinion of this Court fail to identify the petitioner to be the son of Radhacharan Das. Though an affidavit had been filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal with an endeavor to correct the anomalies , having regard to the provisions prescribed by the relevant law in this regard the same cannot be acted upon. The finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner h ad failed to prove that his father had been a voter of the aforementioned Legisl ative Assembly of the State of Assam in 1966 cannot be faulted with. 9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view, th at the petitioner has not been able to make out a case to justify interference with the impugned order dated 12.2.2010. 10. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accor dingly dismissed. No costs.