ORDER B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By. this writ application, the two petitioners who are brothers seek to challenge the judgments and orders dated 17.11.2003 passed by the Illegal Migrants (D) Appellate Tribunal, Assam in Appeal Case Nos. 26/2003 and 27/2003 affirming the judgments dated 7.3.2003 passed by the Illegal Migrants (D) Tribunal, Jorhat in IM(D)T Case No. JDT 88/2000 and IM(D)T Case No. JDT 89/2000 by which the petitioners have been held to be illegal migrants within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the IM(D)T Act (Act 39 of 1983) and answering the reference made to it by the Superintendent of Police (B), Jorhat under Section 8(1) of the IM(D)T Act. 2. Upon a reference as aforesaid, the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") registered IM(D)T Case No. JDT 89/2000 and IM(D)T Case No.. JDT 88/2000 respectively against the petitioners. Upon notice to the petitioners they appeared before the Tribunal and adduced evidence. The Tribunal on perusal of the evidence on record and upon elaborate and detailed discussion answered the reference whether the petitioners are illegal migrants within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the aforesaid Act, held, the petitioners to be illegal migrants. The Tribunal passed two separate orders making reference to each other in respect of aforesaid two references on the same date, i.e., 7.3.2003. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred two separate appeals viz. Appeal Case No. 26/2003 and 27/2003 before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Appellate Tribunal, Assam, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal"). The Appellate Tribunal upon a threadbare discussion of the evidence on record and upon scrutiny of the judgments of the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by its common judgment dated 17.11.2003 affirming the judgments of the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners who were the opposite parties and appellants before the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court assailing the legality and validity of the aforesaid judgments. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. advocate appearing for the State respondents. 3. The petitioners who were the opposite parties and appellants before the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court assailing the legality and validity of the aforesaid judgments. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. advocate appearing for the State respondents. On being pointed out the scope of judicial review in such matters, more particularly in view of concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below and that the writ court will not sit on appeal over such finding of facts by way of reappreciating the evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly agreed to such proposition of law. He, however, submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and based on no evidence. However, apart from making a general statement relating to perversity of findings, nothing could be pointed out to substantiate such a submission. 4. It is the case of the petitioners both before the Tribunals below as well as before the writ court that they were born at Dimapur, Nagaland and they pursued their studies at Dimapur. However, in the same breath they made statements that they got their education in Karimganj College in the District of Karimganj, Assam. Their further case is that their family shifted to Moriani, Jorhat in the year 1998. In support of their such stand, they asserted that their father shifted to Nagaland in the year 1961 to earn his livelihood. The petitioners have referred to a document purportedly issued to their father by the Mokukchung District Administration. Thus on the face of it there are inherent contradictions inasmuch as, as per their own case their father was having business at Mokukchung, Nagaland which is a place far off from Dimapur, but they were allegedly born at Dimapur. There is no explanation as to when and for what purpose, the father of the petitioners had shifted to Dimapur. As per their own assertions they had their education at Dimapur, but have referred to their study in Karimganj College in the State of Assam. They could not produce any school certificates. They are also allegedly voters of Badarpur in the State of Assam. As per their own assertions they had their education at Dimapur, but have referred to their study in Karimganj College in the State of Assam. They could not produce any school certificates. They are also allegedly voters of Badarpur in the State of Assam. It is not understood as to how they could be the voters of Badarpur in the State of Assam, if they were born and brought up at Dimapur in the State of Nagaland. They have referred to places of Nagaland and Moriani in the State of Assam but have not even obliquely stated as to how they could get their education in Karimganj College in the District of Karimganj, Assam, more so when their own stand even in the writ petition is that they pursued their studies at Dimapur. 5. The above inherent contradiction is only illustrative and not exhaustive. The Tribunals below have exhaustively recorded their findings upon evaluation of the evidence on record and the inherent contradictions in the assertions made by the petitioners. It is upon such evaluation of evidences on record, the Tribunal came to the definite finding that the petitioners are illegal migrants. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal also perused the evidences on record and by a detailed and exhaustive judgment has affirmed the findings of the Tribunal. Such findings of fact cannot be scrutinized and reappreciated like an Appellate Authority in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 226 is the power of judicial review. The High Court can only examine the procedural correctness. It cannot go into the merits of the controversy like an Appellate Authority. There is neither any procedural infirmity in the proceedings before the Tribunals below nor the petitioners have even obliquely agitated the same. Merely because no further appeal is provided for against the judgments and orders of the Tribunals below, the power of the High Court under Article 226 would not get enlarged nor can the High Court exercise an appellate power while examining the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunals below. The Apex Court in the case of Appropriate Authority v. Sudha Patil as reported in held that, on the materials if two views are possible, even then it would not be possible for the High Court to substitute its conclusion for that of the Tribunal. The Apex Court in the case of Appropriate Authority v. Sudha Patil as reported in held that, on the materials if two views are possible, even then it would not be possible for the High Court to substitute its conclusion for that of the Tribunal. It is trite to say that o the proceedings arising under Article 226 of the Constitution are in the nature of judicial review and such review could be only in respect of the process of decision and not the decision itself, the Apex Court emphasized in the case of Union of India v. Shatabadi Trading as reported in. 6. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition the petitioners have prayed for to allow them to place certain more facts which according to them could not be placed before the Tribunals below either due to their inadvertence and/or not within their knowledge. Thus even before this court the petitioners are not sure as to whether those materials, which purportedly could not be placed before the Tribunals below were due to their inadvertence or not having been within their knowledge. Apart from the position of law that no new plea can be allowed to be agitated coming to the writ court which were not agitated before the Tribunals below, even otherwise also with such kind of a statement, same cannot be allowed to be agitated. Further, the petitioners who unsuccessfully agitated their grievance before the Tribunals below without raising any such plea cannot now be allowed to raise new plea coming to the writ court. In this connection the findings of the Appellate Tribunal that "it appears the appellants were preparing as many documents as possible to prove that they were borne in India. These documents do not inspire any confidence. They are all got up documents" are worth quoting. 7. The Tribunal in its judgment and order dated 7.3.2003 upon discussion of evidence recorded its finding as follows : "Now, if at all the O.P. came to Nagaland to stay with his father from 1980 onwards, how at all he could go to Karimganj of Assam for his education is not at all explained. His written statement is silent with regard to his going again to Karimganj of Assam to study in a college there. His written statement is silent with regard to his going again to Karimganj of Assam to study in a college there. From the evidence of the said Inquiry Officer (PW-1) and his report ext- 2 (more particular Ext 2(1) and Ext 2(2) relating to his findings against Column Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Ext-2) we are inclined to believe that the Inquiry Officer clearly ascertained the facts and submitted his report and the Screening Committee also duly applied its mind in making this reference under section 8(1) of the IM(D)T Act (Act 39 of 1983). The materials on record weigh heavily against the present O.P. in order to warrant the conclusion that the O.P. to this case as a foreigner illegally entered into the territory of India on or after the cut-off date of 25.3.71 without possessing a valid passport or other travel documents or any other lawful authority in that behalf." 8. Similarly the Appellate Tribunal in its elaborate and detailed discussion observed as follows: "The statement of Enquiry Officer is admissible in evidence. From the judgment of the lower tribunal it would appear that the appellants told him that they were born in Assam. Their case now is that they were born in Nagaland. The enquiry officer explained Sankar Dey and Binod Roy. No documentary evidence was produced before the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances it can be said that the lower tribunal committed any mistake in relying upon the statement the Enquiry Officer. His statement was admissible in evidence. The appellants examined themselves. No independent person has come forward to support their case. The documents produced by them are totally unreliable. In view of the discussion made above this Tribunal is of the view that the trial court did not commit any error in coming to conclusion that the appellants are Illegal Migrants. The appeals have no force and are liable to be dismissed." 9. It has already been observed above that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226of the Constitution of India, the writ court will not sit on appeal over the evidence and findings recorded by the Tribunals below. I have gone through the materials on record including the averments made in the writ petition. I have also perused the impugned judgments and do not find any infirmity with the same. I have gone through the materials on record including the averments made in the writ petition. I have also perused the impugned judgments and do not find any infirmity with the same. During the course of motion hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his argument that the findings recorded by the Tribunals below are perverse or based on no evidence. 10. In view of the above I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine at the motion stage itself. 11. Writ petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of this order shall be immediately sent to the respondents for their necessary follow up action. Petition dismissed