JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.2008 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro) in FT Kamrup(M) Case No. 429/2007, corresponding to IM(D)T Case No. 321/2005 and Police Case No. 651/2006, State of Assam v. Md. Majidur Rahman, by which the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner (illegal Bangladeshi Migrant) who entered Assam (India) after the cut-off date i.e. 25.3.1971. The writ petition was entertained by order dated 5.6.2009 with an interim order directing the petitioner to surrender before the Senior Superintendent of Police (B), Guwahati City by 12.6.2009. However, it was provided that he would not be deported from India. 2. The petitioner did not surrender before the said authority about which mention has been made in various orders passed in this proceeding, such as 4.8.2010, 19.8.2010, 26.8.2010, 29.9.2010, 12.10.2010, 19.4.2011, 21.4.2011, 6.6.2011, 2.8.2011, etc. 3. On 21.9.2011, another set of lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would appear before this Court on 23.9.2011. However, as recorded in the order dated 23.9.2011 after much efforts and constant monitoring of the case by this Court as reflected in the aforesaid orders, the petitioner could be arrested by the Police on 22.9.2011. 4. After such non-compliance of the order of this Court by the petitioner, upon invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 1.11.2011 through his relation, in which it has been stated that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had gone to Meghalaya where he remained for about 2 (two) years and could come back only in August, 2011. According to the said affidavit, the petitioner was not aware of the orders passed by this Court in his own writ petition. 5. In the aforesaid affidavit, the petitioner has also made certain statements to the effect that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner, as has been held by the Tribunal. 6. According to the said affidavit, the petitioner was not aware of the orders passed by this Court in his own writ petition. 5. In the aforesaid affidavit, the petitioner has also made certain statements to the effect that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner, as has been held by the Tribunal. 6. The petitioner has also filed another affidavit on 17.12.2011 through one Mominur Islam, who claims to be the brother of the petitioner stating about the NRC of 1951 purportedly containing the name of the father of the petitioner, certificate issued by the particular Gaon Panchayat dated 8.8.2005, Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA), containing the name of one Mazidur Rahmal Akond and also the Mark sheet dated 9.7.93 containing the same name. In the said affidavit, it has also been stated that the petitioner was a student of Higher Secondary School. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to the admit card issued by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council and the mark sheet for the year 1994 and 1995. 7. I have heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State Counsel and so also Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA and Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned CGC I have also perused the records of the Tribunal. My findings are as follows. 8. As the records of the Tribunal have revealed, the petitioner Md. Majidur Rahman S/o. Md. Nur Baktar Rahman, aged about 28 years was suspected to be an illegal migrant and accordingly, the Superintendent of Police(B), City, Guwahati, made a reference to the Tribunal. The enquiry was conducted during the year 2004. 9. On receipt of the reference, the Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner and he appeared before the Tribunal on 30.11.2007. Thereafter on all subsequent dates, namely, 9.1.2008, 30.1.2008, 13.2.2008, 27.02.2008, he remained absent without any steps. It appears that the petitioner on the first date of appearance had submitted 3 (three) documents (all photocopies). The first document (not legible) contains the purported signature dated 19.1.1989 of the Secretary, South Salmara Mondol Congress(I) Committee and the said document projected as voter list (extract) only contains the names of Abdul Karim and Alchan Nessa Bibi, aged 35 and 25 years. 10. The first document (not legible) contains the purported signature dated 19.1.1989 of the Secretary, South Salmara Mondol Congress(I) Committee and the said document projected as voter list (extract) only contains the names of Abdul Karim and Alchan Nessa Bibi, aged 35 and 25 years. 10. The 2nd document is dated 6.10.1985 purportedly containing the NRC entry naming 9 (nine) persons, one of whom is Noor Bhakta Sk S/o. Abdul Sk aged 16 years. The 3rd document is dated 8.8.2005 purportedly issued by the particular Gaon Panchayat certifying that one Mozidur Rahman Akand S/o. Nur Bokto Akand was resident of the said Gaon Panchayat under P.S. South Salmara in the district of Dhubri. The certificate also certifies that the name of his father had entered in the NRC of 1951. 11. The petitioner never exhibited and proved the said documents in the proceeding before the Tribunal and as noted above, remained absent all throughout after the first appearance. 12. As regards his non-appearance before the Tribunal, the petitioner has stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that after submission of the aforementioned documents, the office staff of the Tribunal told him not to worry about the matter and that if necessary, would serve further notice on him. Accordingly, he did not appear any further in the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner has blamed the office staff of the Tribunal without naming them. This kind of plea is not at all tenable that too in a proceeding in which as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the proceedee to establish his Indian citizenship. 13. That apart, mere production of some photocopies of some documents cannot absolve the liability of the proceedee to prove the same as required under the Evidence Act. Even mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to proof. In other words mere making of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act, cannot be relied upon by the Court. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act, cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the documents cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court. 14. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner has been noted above. Firstly, he appeared before the Tribunal on the first date fixed and submitted the aforesaid documents (all photocopies). Thereafter he remained absent all throughout. Secondly, coming to the writ Court invoking its writ jurisdiction, he defied the interim order passed by this Court, in terms of which he was required to appear before the Sr. SP(B) on or before 12.6.2009. Not to speak of appearing before the said authority, he did not even respond to the instant proceeding in-spite of several opportunities granted. Eventually, because of the constant monitoring of this case by this Court, he could be arrested on 22.9.2011. 15. It is only after the aforesaid development, the petitioner has now urged all sorts of grounds by filing additional affidavit inter alia contending that he is known by 3 (three) names, namely, Md. Majidur Rahman Akond @ Md. Mozidur Rahman @ Mozidul Rahmal Akand and that his father is also known by two names, namely Shri Nur Bhakta Sk @ Nur Bokto Akand. With the aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the documents annexed to the affidavit filed on 17.12.2011. Document-1 is the purported NRC entries containing the name of his father Noor Bhakta Sk S/o. Abdul Sk. Document-2 is the aforementioned G.P. certificate dated 8.8.2005 certifying the petitioner to be the son of said Nur Bokto Akand, whose name entered in the NRC of 1951. Documents 3 & 4 are the admit card and mark sheet issued by the SEBA in favour of one Md. Mozidur Rahmal Akond. Documents 5 & 6 are the admit card and mark sheet issued by the Higher Secondary Education Council, Guwahati in favour of one Mozidur Rahman Akand. Documents No. 7 & 8 are also admit card and mark sheet issued by Assam Higher Secondary Education Council in favour of Md. Mozidur Rahman Akand S/o. Md. Nur Bakta Bepary. The word 'Bepary' although tried to be scored off by using eraser but is still legible. Documents No. 7 & 8 are also admit card and mark sheet issued by Assam Higher Secondary Education Council in favour of Md. Mozidur Rahman Akand S/o. Md. Nur Bakta Bepary. The word 'Bepary' although tried to be scored off by using eraser but is still legible. Document No. 9 is another certificate purportedly issued by the Principal of the particular School in favour of one Md. Mozidur Rahman Akand S/o. Md. Nur Bakta Bepary. Likewise, Document-10 is also a School Certificate issued in favour of Md. Mozidur Rahman Akond S/o. Md. Nur Bakta Bepary. Document marked as Document No. 11 is the extract of the voter list of 1966 and 1970 containing the name of one Nur Bakta Sk. Document No. 12 is again the HSLC certificate issued in favour of one Md. Mozidul Rahmal Akond. Documents No. 13 & 14 are the certificates issued in favour of Md. Mozidur Rahman Akond S/o. Md. Nur Bakta Bepary. 16. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the petitioner claims that he is an Indian citizen, by birth. However, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner at the first instance before the Tribunal, could not produce any of the said documents except the 3 (three) documents about which discussions have been made above. There is also no explanation as to why there is variation in his names, even in the School certificates, more particularly, in the HSLC certificates and HSSLC certificates. While in the HSLC certificate, the person named is one Md. Mozidur Rahmal Akand, in the HSSLC certificates, the candidate named is Md. Mozidur Rahman Akand. Likewise, there is also variation in the name of the father of the said candidate. While in the admit card relating to HSLC examination, he has been named as Md. Nur Bakta Bepary but in the HSSLC certificate, the father of the candidate is Md. Nur Bakter Akand. In another admit card of the same council, his name is Md. Nur Bakta Bepary and the word "Bepary' was sought to be erased. The voter list on which the petitioner has placed reliance/contains the name of Nur Bakta Sk whom the petitioner has sought to identify as his father with the plea that Nur Bakta Akond, Md. Nur Bhakta Sk, Md. Nur Bakta Bepary and Nur Bakter Akand are one and the same person. The voter list on which the petitioner has placed reliance/contains the name of Nur Bakta Sk whom the petitioner has sought to identify as his father with the plea that Nur Bakta Akond, Md. Nur Bhakta Sk, Md. Nur Bakta Bepary and Nur Bakter Akand are one and the same person. There is no explanation as to how there could be so much of variation in names in the documents pertaining to 2 (two) successive examinations, namely HSLC and HSSLC. While in the HSLC certificate, the name of the candidate is Md. Mozidul Rah-mal Akond in the HSSLC certificate, the name of the candidate is Md. Mozidur Rahman Akond. 17. With the above kind of variations and conduct, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise also, the writ Court cannot make a roving enquiry in respect of the documents on which the petitioner has placed reliance after defying the proceeding before the Tribunal and defying the interim order of this Court. 18. The proceeding before the Tribunal was in the name of Md. Majidur Rahman S/o. Md. Nur Bhaktar Rahman. Notice of the proceeding was also served on the petitioner in that name and he also responded to the same by appearing on the first date on which date he produced the aforementioned three documents (all photocopies) without proving the contents thereof. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take any name resembling to his and his father's name, so as to contend that all the names belong to one and the same person. 19. As has been held by the Apex Court way back in 1969 in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 110 , the petitioner has no right to move the Court for enforcement of his fundamental right on a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement and if he files such a petition, the Court will dismiss it. A calculated design and suppression of material facts in order to secure admission and interim relief, which, if disclose, would entitle the petitioner to the extraordinary remedy, or in any case, would have materially affected the merits on both the interim and ultimate relief claimed would deprive the petitioner from considering his case on merits. A calculated design and suppression of material facts in order to secure admission and interim relief, which, if disclose, would entitle the petitioner to the extraordinary remedy, or in any case, would have materially affected the merits on both the interim and ultimate relief claimed would deprive the petitioner from considering his case on merits. In the instant case, the petitioner after invoking the writ jurisdiction, defied the interim order passed by this Court and he remained away from the proceeding for more than 2 (two) years. 20. This Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot make a roving enquiry on disputed questions of facts. The petitioner was given opportunity to defend the reference made against him, which he failed to avail of. Having regard to the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946, which mandates the proceedee to discharge the burden of proof, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to discharge the same in accordance with law. He having failed to do so and there being no reasonable ground to interfere with the ex parte proceeding against him, this Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. 21. In the instant case, during investigation made by the SI(B), the petitioner could not produce any document to prove his Indian citizenship. The Tribunal has rightly observed in its impugned order that mere production of photocopies of the three, documents mentioned above, was not enough. The petitioner did not produce the originals of the same nor did he prove the same. The Tribunal has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1961 SC 1526 (The UOI and others v. Ghaus Mohammad) in which the Apex Court referring to Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 held that the onus of showing that he is not a foreigner was upon the said petitioner. It was further observed that the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be appropriate for a decision on the question. It was further observed that the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be appropriate for a decision on the question. The petitioner after having failed to discharge the said burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, cannot now be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction with the kind of conduct noted in this proceeding and raising all sorts of disputed question of facts. 22. Situated thus, I have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition upholding the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 23. Registry may transmit the case records to the Tribunal. 24. The Sr. Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup (Metro) and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) are directed to take appropriate action in the matter towards deportation of the petitioner from India and deletion of his name from the voter list, if found to have entered. 25. Let copies of this judgment and order be furnished to the Sr. Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup (Metro) and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro). Another copy be sent to the Union of India in the Ministry of Home. An extra copy of this judgment and order may also be furnished to Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State Counsel for his necessary follow up action. List after one month for furnishing reports by the Sr. Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup (Metro) and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro). Petition dismissed.