Ujjal Bhuyan, J.- By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 05.10.2009 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara in Case No. FT.1361/G/06 declaring the petitioner to be an illegal migrant of the post 1971 stream, liable to expulsion from India. 2. The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) of the No. 37 Goalpara East Legislative Assembly Constituency (LAC) considered the draft electoral roll of ward No. 4 of Goalpara town for the purpose of intensive revision of the draft electoral roll following direction of the Election Commission of India with reference to 01.01.1997 as the qualifying date. When the ERO had doubt about the citizenship of the petitioner, he got the matter verified through the Local Verification Officer (LVO) as per prescribed format, including on the spot verification. Petitioner failed to furnish any document in support of her citizenship. As per report of LVO, petitioner was allowed to stay in the house where she was staying by the owner without taking any rent from 1993 to 1997. The ERO then forwarded the case to the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara being the Chairman of the Screening Committee. 3. Case was referred to the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal (BVIDT). While the case was pending before the MDT, the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, under which the IMDT was functioning, was declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara (Tribunal), where it was re-numbered as FT Case No. 1 361/G/06. 4. Though notice issued by the Tribunal was duly served on the petitioner, who was represented by a lawyer, no written statement was filed. Later on, the lawyer withdrew from the case on the ground that the petitioner did not cooperate with him. Thereafter, the case proceeded ex-parte and by the impugned order dated 05.10.2009, the Tribunal declared the petitioner to be an illegal migrant of the post 1971 stream, liable to expulsion from India. 5. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. This Court by order dated 22.02.2010 admitted the writ petition and in the interim directed that the petitioner may not be deported from India, giving liberty to the respondents to detain the petitioner in custody. 7. Heard Mr. R. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Hussain, learned Central Government Counsel. Also heard Mr. 6. This Court by order dated 22.02.2010 admitted the writ petition and in the interim directed that the petitioner may not be deported from India, giving liberty to the respondents to detain the petitioner in custody. 7. Heard Mr. R. Dey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Hussain, learned Central Government Counsel. Also heard Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was born and brought up at Bilasipara, which was earlier in the undivided Goalpara district and now in Dhubri district. Father of the petitioner Md. Kazimuddin Sheikh was a citizen of India and his name was recorded in the National Register of Citizens. Both her father and mother Musstt. Sarvanu were voters in the 1966 voters list. Her mother and her brothers have been exercising their franchise from No. 27 Bilasipara East LAC. After her marriage to one Md. Abdul Mazid during 1971-72, she came to and settled down at Goalpara where she had cast her vote. When notice was served upon the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal, she engaged a counsel who appeared before the Tribunal on 16.03.2009. Petitioner is an illiterate lady and she did not have any document to prove her citizenship. She could collect only a certified copy of the voters list of 1996 where her name appeared. While she was making attempts to collect documents to show that she has been residing in India prior to 1971, which was time consuming, the impugned order was delivered. Learned Counsel submits that petitioner may be given one more opportunity to appear before the Tribunal and to prove her citizenship. He therefore seeks remand of the case for hearing afresh after setting aside the impugned order. 9. Submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is strongly opposed by the learned Central Government Counsel as well as by the learned State Counsel. Learned State Counsel has referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 to contend that petitioner failed to produce any document before the enquiry officer in support of her nationality during the enquiry. There were clear laches on her part in the proceeding before the Tribunal. Tribunal could not have waited for an indefinite period for the petitioner to prove her nationality. There were clear laches on her part in the proceeding before the Tribunal. Tribunal could not have waited for an indefinite period for the petitioner to prove her nationality. Having regard to the settled legal position as to the onus of proving one's citizenship when questioned by the State, they assert that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal. They therefore seek dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the record of the case. 11. It is not in dispute that notice from the Tribunal in connection with the impugned proceeding was served on the petitioner. After receipt of notice, petitioner engaged a Counsel who represented her before the Tribunal. After a number of dates, during which period written statement was not filed by the petitioner, the Counsel withdrew from the case complaining that he did not receive any communication from his client. Though the Tribunal granted further time to the petitioner, she neither filed written statement nor appeared before the Tribunal to context the proceeding. Finally, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2009. 12. A perusal of the order dated 05.10.2009 as well as the record would show that time was sought for on behalf of the petitioner on 28.04.2009, 10.06.2009, 10.07.2009 and 31.07.2009. The engaged Counsel filed a petition before the Tribunal on 03.09.2009 withdrawing himself from the case complaining that the petitioner did not maintain any contact with him. On that day, the petitioner was absent. Because of her absence and non-submission of written statement, order was passed by the Tribunal to proceed with the case ex-parte, fixing 05.10.2009. When the case was taken up on 05.10.2009, the petitioner again remained absent. As such, the Tribunal passed the ex-parte order holding that petitioner had failed to prove her citizenship. Accordingly, she was declared as illegal migrant of post 1971 stream, liable for expulsion from India. 13. Under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the onus of proving that a person is not a foreigner shall lie upon such person. 14. As such, the Tribunal passed the ex-parte order holding that petitioner had failed to prove her citizenship. Accordingly, she was declared as illegal migrant of post 1971 stream, liable for expulsion from India. 13. Under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the onus of proving that a person is not a foreigner shall lie upon such person. 14. A full Bench of this Court in State of Assam and others vs. Moslem Mondal and others, See (2013)1 NET 460 reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 has held that in an ex-parte proceeding before the Tribunal when the proceedee does not appear and does not adduce any evidence to discharge his initial burden, the Tribunal has no alternative but to opine the proceedee as a foreigner, having regard to the grounds on which reference has been initiated and notice having been issued. In an ex-parte proceeding, State is not required to adduce evidence as the burden lies on the proceedee to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that he is not a foreigner in view of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Paragraph 78 of the said judgment is as under:- “(78). In a proceedeeing under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with 1964 Order the issue is whether the proceedee is a foreigner. It being a fact especially within the knowledge of the proceedee, the burden of proving that he is a citizen is, therefore, upon him, because of Section 9 of the 1946 Act and it is, therefore, his obligation to provide enough evidence to establish that he is not a foreigner. In an ex-parte proceeding before the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of 1964 Order the said position would not be changed as the burden of proving that the proceedee is not a foreigner continues to be upon the proceedee, which cannot shift and when the proceedee does not adduce any evidence to discharge such burden, the Tribunal has no alternative but to opine the proceedee as a foreigner, having regard to the main grounds on Which the reference has been initiated and the notice having been issued to the proceedee. Unlike in a suit in the Civil Court, where the Court may require the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove his case even in an ex-parte proceeding, as the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, in a proceeding before the Tribunal under the provisions of 1946 Act read with 1964 Order, the same is not required, meaning thereby mat the State is not required to adduce evidence in an ex-parte proceeding, as the burden lies on the proceedee to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that he is not a foreigner, in view of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the 1946 Act.” 15. Coming to ex-parte proceeding, the Full Bench held that in a given case the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and pass necessary order on an application to set aside an ex-parte opinion provided it is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the proceedee was not served with the notice in the reference proceeding or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the proceeding. Full Bench opined that such application cannot be entertained in a routine manner. Paragraph 92 of the said judgment reads as under: - “(92). As discussed above, the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners Act read with the 1964 Order have to regulate their own procedure and they have also the quasi-judicial function to discharge and hence in a given case the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and pass necessary order on an application to set aside an ex-parte opinion, provided it is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the proceed was not served with the notice in the reference proceeding or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the proceeding, reason for which was beyond his control. Such application, however, should not be entertained in a routine manner. The Tribunal can entertain such application provided the proceedee could demonstrate the existence of the special/exceptional circumstances to entertain the same by way of pleadings in the application filed for setting aside the ex-parte opinion, otherwise the very purpose of enacting the 1946 Act and the 1964 Order would be frustrated. The Tribunal, therefore, would have the jurisdiction to reject such application at the threshold, if no ground is made out.” 16. The Tribunal, therefore, would have the jurisdiction to reject such application at the threshold, if no ground is made out.” 16. When the petitioner seeks remand for a fresh decision by the Tribunal, he must be able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that he was either not served the notice of the proceeding or he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the proceeding, the reason for his absence being beyond his control. A proceeding relating to citizenship of a person cannot be taken lightly. It cannot continue for an indefinite period or till such time or decision which can only be to the satisfaction of the proceed. After a proceeding is continued for a number of years and when the materials on record indicate clear laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner, order of remand is not to be passed unless exceptional circumstances are made out by the petitioner. 17. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition do not disclose any such exceptional circumstances to warrant remand of the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision as sought for by the petitioner. All that has been stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is an illiterate and poor person. This is no ground for remand. When the petitioner had engaged a lawyer to defend herself before the Tribunal, such averments on the face of it are untenable and cannot be accepted. 18. In view of above, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 05.10.2009. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Registry to send down the case record forthwith. No cost.