Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.—The petitioner who has been declared as foreign national (illegal Bangladeshi migrant) seeks to claim Indian citizenship and that too, by birth, with the following statement. 2. That the petitioner is a poor woman. The petitioner as well as her father were born and brought up at village Sonaiberapam, P.O., Balikatia under Juria Police State in the district of Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner got married in the year 1994 with one Md. Ichamuddin, Son of Late Jaher Uddin of village, Potia Chapori, P.O. Dhing, P.S. Dhing in the District of Nagaon, Assam and since then she has been permanently residing at her husband's house as stated above. Due to their wed-lock four children were born and all are minors and between the age group of 2, 4, 6 and 8 and needs parental care. 3. That the petitioner begs to state that she is a citizen of India by birth. Her father Abul Kasem is an inhabitant of village, Sonaiberapam, P.O., Balikatia, P.S. Juria in the District of Nagaon, Assam and was born on 1955. Her father Abul Kasem is the elder son of Late Abul Hasen. The name of late Abul Hasen appeared in the Electoral Roll of 1965 under 87 No. Rupahihat Legislative Assembly Constituency at village, Sonaiberapam, Mouza, Alitngani in Part No. 14, House No. 7, Serial No. 17. The petitioner's father name also appeared in the electoral roll of 2007 under Rupahihat legislative Assembly Constituency in Serial No. 52, House No. 318 at village, Sonaibera-Simaluati under Nagaon Sadar (Mahukuma). The petitioner begs to state that she has been living in the above place permanently.In support of the aforesaid contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-B photocopy of the voter list of 1965 and the photocopy of voter list of 2007 (not very legible). Although the petitioner has declared her age as 34 years on the date of swearing the affidavit in support of the writ petition (27.01.2009), but could not annex any document including any voter list containing her name. 2. As stated in the writ petition, the reference made against the petitioner was registered and numbered as FT Case No. 344/2006. On receipt of the notice from Foreigners' Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and took time to file written statement. 2. As stated in the writ petition, the reference made against the petitioner was registered and numbered as FT Case No. 344/2006. On receipt of the notice from Foreigners' Tribunal, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and took time to file written statement. As stated in paragraph-4, "But unfortunately due to lack of communication with the counsel whom she had engaged, she could not file her written statement on date". Further statement made is that the Tribunal vide ex parte judgment and order dated 05.02.2008 declared her as foreigner, who entered India after 25.03.1971 without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being heard and to produce the records in support of her defence which caused great injustice/prejudice to the petitioner. 3. The ex parte proceeding and the order dated 05.02.2008 is the result of nonappearance of the petitioner before the Tribunal even on receipt of notice and appearance at the first instance praying for time to file written statement. However, when the petitioner no further responded to the proceeding before the Tribunal, it had no other option than to proceed ex parte. There is absolutely no statement and/or pleadings in the writ petition as to what prevented the petitioner from appearing before the Tribunal after appearance at the first instance praying for time to file written statement. The plea of communication gap with her engaged counsel is as vague as anything and this Court exercising the writ jurisdiction cannot give any indulgence to such a plea, more particularly when the burden was on the petitioner to prove her Indian citizenship as envisaged u/s 9 of the Foreigner's Act, 1946 about which much has been emphasised in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, . 4. I have heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Chetri, learned State counsel. None appears for the Union of India. I have also gone through the materials available on record. Although the records from the Tribunal were called for, but as stated by the learned State counsel, same having been misplaced, could not be produced. 5. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is required to be given another opportunity to prove her case. However, on being asked as to why the petitioner did not respond to the proceeding before the Tribunal, he could cannot furnish any satisfactory explanation. 5. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is required to be given another opportunity to prove her case. However, on being asked as to why the petitioner did not respond to the proceeding before the Tribunal, he could cannot furnish any satisfactory explanation. On being further queried as to on what documents the petitioner could be declared as Indian citizen and that too, by birth, he referred to the aforesaid documents only. 6. Mr. Chetri, learned State counsel submitted that the facts stated in the writ petition themselves would go to show that the petitioner is not an Indian citizen as has been claimed by her. As regards the records of the Tribunal, he submitted that the records contained the notice served on her; her application praying for time to file written statement and the orders pertaining to ex parte hearing and the impugned order which are very much available in this proceeding. 7. Irrespective of the aforesaid position, I have considered the case projected by the petitioner in the writ petition. As noted above, as per own declaration of the petitioner, her age as on 27.01.2009 (date of swearing the affidavit), was 34 years. If that be so and having regard to her plea of being an Indian citizen by birth, she could have produced the valid documents, more particularly the voter list containing her name therein. The only documents on which she has placed reliance are Annexures-A, B, C and D. Annexure-A is the photocopy of certificate issued by the Secretary of the particular G.P. certifying that the name of the petitioner's purported father Md. Abul Kasem was enlisted in the electoral roll of 1997. The said voter list is pertaining to Dhing LAC. Annexure-B is the photocopy and extract of voter list of 1965 containing the name of one Abdul Hasen aged 35 years whom the petitioner claims to be her grand father. The said voter list is of Rupahihat LAC. Annexure-C is the certificate issued by the Govt. Gaonburah certifying inclusion of her grand father's name in 1965 electoral roll. Annexure-D is the photocopy of the voter list of 2007 (not very legible) containing the name of Abul Kasem whom the petitioner claims to be her father. 8. The said voter list is of Rupahihat LAC. Annexure-C is the certificate issued by the Govt. Gaonburah certifying inclusion of her grand father's name in 1965 electoral roll. Annexure-D is the photocopy of the voter list of 2007 (not very legible) containing the name of Abul Kasem whom the petitioner claims to be her father. 8. There is absolutely no explanation as to why her purported father and grand father's names did not appear in any other voter lists except 1965 and 2007. There is also no explanation as to why the name of the petitioner has not been included in any voter lists. I hasten to add that it is not for the writ Court to analyse and appreciate the documents annexed to the writ petition to arrive at a finding relating to citizenship. However, the claim of the petitioner that she is Indian citizen by birth is belied by her own documents. As has been held by the Apex Court in Bharat Singh v. Dallu, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181 , when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition, the Court will not entertain the point. In a writ petition not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 9. Merely because the petitioner claims to be an Indian citizenship by birth (without enclosing any supporting documents) and has placed reliance on the aforementioned documents, the same cannot establish her Indian citizenship she having failed to prove the said documents as per the provision of Evidence Act. Dealing with the question of its admissibility of evidentiary value of school register for determination of age, the Apex Court in Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, , observed that entry regarding age of a person in a school register has not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in absence of material on which the age was recorded (see Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, ). State of Jharkhand and Another, , observed that entry regarding age of a person in a school register has not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in absence of material on which the age was recorded (see Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, ). In the instant case, the documents in which the petitioner has placed reliance cannot be accepted as she has failed to establish that the names therein are relatable to her. 10. As has been held by the Apex Court in L.I.C. of India and Another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, , mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere making of an exhibit of a document does not dispense with its proof which is required to be done in accordance with law. In paragraph-31 of the judgment, it has been observed thus: 31. 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. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court. 11. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasising the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get another opportunity. The petitioner having not availed the opportunity provided to her and even in the writ petition having failed to establish her case, I am of the considered opinion that such a plea is totally misplaced. As per the declaration made by the Tribunal, the petitioner is not a citizen of India. She is therefore, a foreigner as defined in the Foreigners Act. As has been held by the Apex Court in Anwar Vs. The State of J. and K., , a person who is not an Indian citizen is normally not entitled to any fundamental rights guaranteed by Article- 19 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the petitioner involved in the said case had no right to remain within the territories of India. The State of J. and K., , a person who is not an Indian citizen is normally not entitled to any fundamental rights guaranteed by Article- 19 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the petitioner involved in the said case had no right to remain within the territories of India. As in the said case, in the instant case also, it is not the case of the petitioner that she had come to India in accordance with law. The only rights which she can claim are those contained in Article 20 to 22. 12. The petitioner having failed to discharge her burden of proof she is an Indian citizen, she is not entitled to any further right, not to speak of Constitutional rights. Under Section- 9 of the Foreigners Act, whenever a question arises whether a person is or is not a foreigner, the onus of proving that he/she is not a foreigner lies upon him/her. The burden was therefore upon the petitioner to establish that she is a citizen of India in the manner claimed by her and therefore, she is not a foreigner. This burden having not been discharged by the petitioner, it has rightly been held that she is a foreigner and her claim in the writ petition that she is an Indian citizen by birth on the basis of the documents annexed to the writ petition cannot be accepted. 13. As has been observed by the Apex Court in Bhanwaroo Khan and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , even in a case of long stay in the country and enrolment in the voter's list would not confer any right on an alien to continue to stay in the country. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. The interim order operating in this proceeding stands vacated. The petitioner is already in custody (in detention camp) pursuant to her surrender before the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon from 09.03.2009. The Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon shall ensure deletion of her name from the voter list, if any, and her deportation to the country of her origin immediately. Let the copies of this judgment and order be furnished to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon. The Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon shall ensure deletion of her name from the voter list, if any, and her deportation to the country of her origin immediately. Let the copies of this judgment and order be furnished to the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon. Another copy be sent to the Union of India in the Home Ministry. Let another copy of this judgment be furnished to Mr. B. Chetri, learned State counsel for his necessary follow up action. List the matter after one month for furnishing compliance report by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon.