WP(C) 2004/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Barua, learned counsel representing Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI and Mr. B.J. Gh osh, learned State Counsel. I have also considered the entire materials on recor d. This writ petition was filed on 21.5.2008 challenging the order dated 28.6.2005 of the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon passed in FT Case No. 430/2000 (State Vs. Md. Azan Ali). By the said order, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigne r of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 stream. Responding to the notice served on the petitioner, he filed written statement co ntending that his name was enrolled in the voter list of 1966. Learned Tribunal appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, found discrepancies in the name of the petitioner as well as his father in reference to the voter list of 1966. On perusal of the Ext-Ka exhibited by the petitioner, the Tribunal was not in a position to decide as to whether the petitioner, son of Late Jigir Mia is one an d the same person mentioned in the said exhibit. The Tribunal found that there w as failure on the part of the petitioner to discharge the burden of proof to est ablish that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971 . Such finding of fact cannot be interfered with lightly exercising writ jurisdi ction. Thus there is no question of inference with the impugned order. This now leads us to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to ge t his name registered or not at this stage. As noted above, the writ petition wa s filed after about three years of the impugned judgment. However, Mr. Choudhury , learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the statements made in paragra ph-9 of the writ petition submits that the delay in filing the writ petition is due to the confusion as to whether against the said judgment, appeal should be p referred or not. According to the petitioner, he had handed over the related doc uments to one advocate and waiting for his response. On the other hand, as per t he impugned judgment, the petitioner was to register his name within two months. As per the decision in State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal reported in 2013 (1) GLT SC 809, prescription of time for filing such application seeking registration h as a purpose. Such persons, who are detected to be a foreigner of the stream bet ween 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971, cannot enjoy the right under sub-section (4) of Section 6A for an indefinite period of time, without registering their names as required by law. They being recognized as the foreigners by sub-section (3) of S ection 6A, they will be treated as foreigners for all purposes, unless they regi ster their names within the time limit prescribed. The time limit can be extende d by the Registering Authority only under very exception circumstances. For a re ady reference, the relevant portion of paragraph-111 of the said judgment is quo ted below: 111. 1956 Rules as well as 2009 Rules, as noticed above, provide the initial time limit for filing application for registration, i.e. 1(one) month, which is extendable by another 60 days by the registering authority. Though there is no t ime limit prescribed in Section 6A of the 1955 Act for filing such application, having regard to the purpose for which Section 6A of the 1955 Act has been enact ed, it also cannot be said that the fixation of time limit for filing the applic ation has no bearing on the purpose sought to be achieved by such enactment. How ever, such time limit can be extended by the registering authority, only under v ery exceptional circumstances preventing the applicant from filing the applicati on due to reasons beyond his control, for which the reasons have to be recorded by the registering authority. But such extension of time cannot also be for an i ndefinite period of time, having regard to the object of the enactment of Sectio n 6A of the 1955 Act. A person who does not register within the time limit fixed or within the time limit that may be extended by the registering authority, is liable to be deported from India as he is admittedly a foreigner and he has not acquired the right of a citizen of India as has been acquired by a person of Ind ian origin who came to Assam from the specified territory prior to 01.01.1966, b y virtue of the deeming provision in sub-section (2) of Section 6A of the 1955 A ct & & & & & (Emphasis added) In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of providing that if the pet itioner is desirous of approaching the Registering Authority, he may do so and t he said authority shall decide as to whether he is entitled to get his name regi stered or not in reference to the aforesaid decision in Moslem Mondal (supra) an d also amended provisions of Rule 19(2) and (2A) of the Citizenship Rules, which provides as follows: [(2) An application for registration under sub-section (3) of section 6A shall be made in Form XVIII, by the person to the registering authority for the distri ct in which he is ordinarily resident, within a period of thirty days from the d ate of receipt of order of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring such person as a fo reigner: Provided that the registering authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writi ng, extend the said period to such further period as may be justified in each ca se bit not exceeding sixty days] [(2-A) A person who has been declared as a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal prior to 16th July, 2013 and has not been registered under sub-section (3) of Se ction 6-A for the reason of non-receipt of order of the Foreigners Tribunal or r efusal by the registering authority to register such person as a foreigner on ac count of delay may, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of t he order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, or, from the date of publication of this notification, make an application for registration in Form XVIII to the reg istering authority of the district in which such person is ordinarily a resident : Provided that the registering authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writi ng, extend the said period to such further period as may be justified in each ca se but not exceeding one hundred eighty days.] However, if the petitioner fails to approach the Registering Authority on or bef ore 30.9.2015 and subject to the order to be passed by the Registering Authority , the petitioner shall be treated as foreigner for all practical purposes like t hat of a foreigner of post 25.3.1971 stream. The S.P. (B), Nagaon shall take con sequential action in this regard. The Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon shall ensure d eletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list, if any. Let copies of this order be furnished to S.P.(B) and DC, Nagaon and so also Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State for their necessary follow up action.