JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners have been declared as foreigners (illegal migrants from the then East Pakistan) to Assam during the period from 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. Such declaration has been made by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon in FT Case No. 885/02. As a consequence of such declaration, although the petitioners will remain in India, but their names are to be deleted from the voter lists. Such deletion will remain in operation for a period of 10 years. This is as per the provision of Citizenship Act specially made for the State of Assam. 2. The petitioners have assailed the order of the Tribunal dated 8.7.2008 claiming that they are all the citizens of India by birth and thus cannot be branded as foreigners coming to India from the then East Pakistan during the period from 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. In this connection, the petitioners have placed reliance on certain documents annexed to the writ petition which are only photocopies. According to the petitioners the name of the petitioner No. 1 appeared in the voter list of 1966 (Photocopy only) which has been annexed to the writ petition. The petitioner No. 1 is now 70 years old and thus had he been an Indian citizen by birth, he could have produced clinching evidence, but it is only the photo copy of the voter list of 1966 purportedly containing his name has been produced. He could not produce any other voter list (s). The photo copies of the certificates purportedly issued by the Gaon Panchayat certifying the petitioners to be the residents of the locality, is of no consequence inasmuch as such the certificates, that too photocopies only, cannot establish the Indian citizenship of the petitioners by birth. Further, the said certificates do not certify that the petitioners are citizen of India by birth, but only certify that the petitioners are the residents of the particular locality. 3. It is on the above basis, the petitioners claim that they are Indian citizens by birth and not foreigners coming to India from the then East Pakistan during the period from 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. 3. It is on the above basis, the petitioners claim that they are Indian citizens by birth and not foreigners coming to India from the then East Pakistan during the period from 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971. Apart from the fact that the name of the petitioner No. 1 who is now 70 years old does not appear in any one of the voter lists except 1966 (if believes to be pertaining to the petitioner No. 1), the names of other petitioners do not appear in any one of the voter lists. 4. I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. K. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. None appears for the Union of India. I have also verified the records of the Tribunal. 5. The order sheets of the case record reveal that after service of notice, the petitioners appeared before the Tribunal on 8.4.2007 and thereafter on the next dale fixed which were 29.9.2007 and 29.9.2007 and on all subsequent dates the prayer made was to grant further time to file written statement which were duly granted by the Tribunal. On 13.11.2007, the petitioners remained absent. On the next date fixed on 15.12.2007, the petitioners appeared before the Tribunal through the petitioner No. 1 and by filing a petition prayed for further time without filing any written statement. The matter was adjourned to 7.2.2008 on which date the petitioners again appeared and filed adjournment petition which was duly granted. After the aforesaid dates, on all other subsequent dates, namely 2.2.2008, 1.3.2008, 1.4.2008, 5.5.208, 9.6.2008 and 8.7.2008 when the reference was finally answered ex parte against the petitioners and in favour of the State the petitioner remained absent. 6. The Tribunal on the basis of the materials on record has answered the reference in favour of the State. On the other hand, the petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof of Indian citizenship as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition the petitioners have stated that on receipt of the notice the petitioner No. 1 had engaged an Advocate. Later on he had engaged another Advocate. It is his further stand he did not appear personally before the Tribunal. Further statement made is that he could not pay due fees to the Advocates and also could rot appear personally before the Tribunal. Later on he had engaged another Advocate. It is his further stand he did not appear personally before the Tribunal. Further statement made is that he could not pay due fees to the Advocates and also could rot appear personally before the Tribunal. Such statement is absolutely false inasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 on receipt of notice duly appeared by filing adjournment petition under his clear signature (RTI). He also appeared on 29.9.2007, 12.11.2007, 5.12.2007 and 7.1.2008 by filing petitions under his clear signature (RTI). In all the petitions prayer was made to grant time to file written statement. 7. Since the Tribunal proceeds on facts and evidence, all the suspected foreigners have to establish Indian citizenship by discharging burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to meet the said test. However, they did not do so and coming to the writ Court has dumped documents (only the photo copies) to claim Indian citizenship by birth The petitioners are wise enough to know that the writ petition filed by them will be one of the thousands of writ petitions pending in the High Court and by the time the writ petition is decided, considerable time is likely to elapse (even years together) and in the process they would be able to procure more documents to establish their Indian citizenship by birth. Such documents are easily available in the State of Assam and there are all round helping hands to help such foreigners. Unfortunately for the petitioners the writ petition could be decided promptly 8. From the materials on record, although it is possible to hold that the petitioners are illegal Bangladeshi migrants entering into Assam after 25.3.1971, but in view of the reference made to determine as to whether the petitioners are within the stream of 1.1.1966-25.3.1971 and having regard to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, I refrain from making further enquiry in that aspect of the matter. 9. The name of the petitioners have already been deleted from the voter list as per the intimation furnished by the Election Officer, Nagaon to the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon vide letter No. 13.4.2009 which is on record. To the same effect, another letter dated 28.4.2009 has been addressed to Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. 9. The name of the petitioners have already been deleted from the voter list as per the intimation furnished by the Election Officer, Nagaon to the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon vide letter No. 13.4.2009 which is on record. To the same effect, another letter dated 28.4.2009 has been addressed to Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate by the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon. 10. If the petitioners are foreigners within the stream of 1.1.1966 to 25.3.1971, they will have to get their names registered with the registering authority with consequence of deletion of their names from all the voter lists and such deletion will remain in force for a period of 10 years as per provision of Citizenship Act. The petitioners shall now register themselves with the registering authority within 7.9.2009 failing which the Superintendent of Police (B) Nagaon shall take them into custody and keep them in custody till such time they are deported to Bangladesh. The Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon shall furnish report in this regard. List the matter on 14.9.2009 for perusal of report to be furnished by the Superintendent of Police. 11. Registry shall send the copies of this judgment and order to the Union of India and the Superintendent of Police (B) Nagaon immediately. Another copy of the said judgment be furnished to Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for necessary follow-up action. 12. Registry shall also send down the LCR to the Tribunal alongwith a copy of this judgment and order. Ordered accordingly.