1. The challenge made in this writ petition is the ex parte judgment and order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) in FT No. 86/2010 by which the petitioner Md. Jiban Uddin Ahmed, son of Late Samsul Miya has been declared to be an illegal Bangladeshi migrant who entered into Assam after the cut off date, i.e. 25.03.1971. In the writ petition there is no plausible explanation as to why the petitioner after his initial response to the proceeding before the Tribunal did not respond any further to the said proceeding, which necessarily resulted in ex party proceeding. Law is well settled that in case of a reference suspecting the person to be a foreign national, the burden of proof lies on the person to establish that he is an Indian citizen. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 envisages the said provision which has been elaborately discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (I) reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920 . 2. I have heard Mr. A. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State counsel. None appears for the Union of India. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. The reference against the petitioner was received from the Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup (M) and on the basis of the same, a case was registered in the Tribunal and by order dated 14.06.2010 notice was issued to him fixing the matter on 27.07.2010. 3. On 27.07.2010 the petitioner duly appeared before the Tribunal and he was given time upto 21.08.2010 for filing written statement and documents. On 21.08.2010 the petitioner did not appear. However, he was given another opportunity fixing the matter on 06.09.2010 on which date also he did not appear without any step. The Tribunal granted him another opportunity fixing the matter on 28.09.2010. However, on the said date also the petitioner did not appear. Accordingly the Tribunal passed the order for ex parte hearing fixing the matter on 21.10.2010. Thereafter the case was heard on 21.10.2010 on which date, evidence of the enquiry officer was recorded who proved the forms I, II and III regarding the statements relating to the petitioner and the report of the enquiry. Accordingly the Tribunal passed the order for ex parte hearing fixing the matter on 21.10.2010. Thereafter the case was heard on 21.10.2010 on which date, evidence of the enquiry officer was recorded who proved the forms I, II and III regarding the statements relating to the petitioner and the report of the enquiry. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 declaring the petitioner to be an illegal migrant who entered into Assam after 25.03.1971. 4. It will be pertinent to mention here that when the petitioner first appeared in the Tribunal on 27.07.2010, he submitted certain documents (all photo copies), such as certificate dated 15.02.2010 purportedly issued by the particular Gaon Panchayat in the district of Karimganj certifying that one Giban Uddin, son of Samsu Mia to be a resident of Madal (I) and that his name was enrolled in the voter list of 2008; extract of 1996 voter list containing the name of one Samsu Mia and Panchayat Electoral Roll of 2007 containing the name of one Giban Uddin, son of Samsu Mia. Although the said documents were produced, but there was no supporting statements by way of filing written statement and affidavit and the said documents were also not proved as required under the Evidence Act. 5. As regards to non-appearance of the petitioner on all subsequent dates, the petitioner has stated in paragraph-3 of the writ petition that after his first appearance he came back to his rented house at Guwahati and after a few months he went to his permanent house and thought that he had already been set free by the Tribunal. Thereafter when he came back to Guwahati he was arrested and he was apprised of the reasons for his arrest. In paragraph -5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he had appeared before the Tribunal on first date and thereafter he was not present on the next dates due to his ignorance of law. 6. Above plea of the petitioner is not at all tenable in law. Needless to say that ignorance of law in not an excuse. If this excuse is allowed, all the foreign nationals, whose presence in Assam, needless to say is in huge numbers, would take the same plea and none of them would be declared to be the foreign national. Above plea of the petitioner is not at all tenable in law. Needless to say that ignorance of law in not an excuse. If this excuse is allowed, all the foreign nationals, whose presence in Assam, needless to say is in huge numbers, would take the same plea and none of them would be declared to be the foreign national. As noted above, Section-9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, casts a burden of proof on the person concerned. The petitioner having failed to discharge the said burden, cannot fall back on the plea of ignorance in law. Thus, it cannot be said that ex parte proceeding against the petitioner was unjust and resultantly the impugned order also cannot be said to be illegal. 7. Merely because the petitioner has placed reliance on the photo copies of four documents (Annexures- II, III, IV and V respectively) which are 1966 and 1970 Electoral Rolls (without photograph, extract only) containing the name of one Samsu Mia; Electoral Roll of 2008 (without photograph) containing the name of one Giban Uddin, son of Samsu Mia and the certificate dated 15.02.2010 purportedly issued by the Gaon Panchayat certifying that one Giban Uddain, son of Samsu Mia enrolled in the Electoral Roll of 2008, same by itself cannot establish the Indian citizenship of the petitioner. Something more is required. 8. Above apart, the petitioner having not exhibited the documents in the required manner, mere filing of the same is of no consequence. There is no compliance of the requirement of law towards proving the documents. Moreover, mere admission of fact in an exhibit does not amount its 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, 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. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court. 9. In the writ petition, the petitioner has given his name as Md. Jiban Uddin Ahmed @ Gibanuddin, son of Lt. Samsul Miya @ Samsu Mia. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court. 9. In the writ petition, the petitioner has given his name as Md. Jiban Uddin Ahmed @ Gibanuddin, son of Lt. Samsul Miya @ Samsu Mia. This has been done to fit in to the documents annexed to the writ petition. On the other hand, he had received notice from the Tribunal in the name Md. Jibanuddin Ahmed, son of Samsul Miya. In all the documents pertaining to the proceeding before the Tribunal, he has been named in that manner and not in any other name. Even in the statement made by him during the course of investigation, he described himself as Jibanuddin Ahmed, son of Lt. Saumsul Miya and not by other name. Now coming to the writ Court the petitioner has named himself in two different names and so also his father, without any supporting documents. That apart, the petitioner has miserably failed to show his link to the documents annexed to the writ petition and also the documents produced before the Tribunal which were also not exhibited and proved as required in law. 10. Above being the position, this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) in FT No. 86/2010 (Union of India vs. Md. Jibanuddin Ahmed). 11. The writ petition is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup (M) shall now take consequential action. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj shall also take steps towards deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list, if found to have entered. 12. Let the copies of this judgment and order be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police(B), Kamrup (M) and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj. Another copy be sent to the Union of India, Home Department, New Delhi. Let a copy of this judgement be also furnished to Mr. H.K. Barman, learned State counsel for his necessary follow up action. Registry may send down the case records to the Tribunal alongwith a copy of this judgment. _____________