JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. V.L. Singha, learned State Counsel and so also Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel holding for Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI. I have also perused the entire materials on record along with the records received from the learned Tribunal. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29/06/2012 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1 in FT Case No. 1237/G/2010 (Ref. cas No. R/IMDT/1908/98) (State of Assam Vs. Musstt. Sarifan Bewa). Byu the said order, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner of post 25/03/1971 stream. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that minor variations here and there in the name of the person concerned cannot lead to the inference that the petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents submit that the learned Tribunal having arrived at a particular finding based on the evidence on record, the said finding cannot be set aside like an appellate authority while exercising writ jurisdiction. 3. The entire find of the learned Tribunal is discernible in para 5 of the impugned order. They are divided into parts and are reproduced below :- “5. (i) The first document relied upon by the OP is the Kacha Patta No. 121 (Ex.1). On perusal of the same, it is found that the names of the proposed pattadars mentioned in it are (a) Nasimuddin Sk (b) Kasimuddin Sk and (c) Jahiruddin Sk – all sons of Late Hussain Sk. The OP has stated that the name of her grandfather is Ashun Ali Sk. If the name of her grandfather was Ashun Ali Sk then Kasimuddin, whose name is shown in Ex. 1 cannot be the father of the OP as the name of Kasimuddin’s father is shown as Hussain Ali Sk in Ex.1 ; (ii) The second document relied upon by the OP is the voters’ list of 1966 (Ex. 2) wherein the only single name mentioned is of one Kasiruddin Sk s/o. Ashun Sk. The OP has stated that the name of her father is Kosimuddin Sk and if that be so, mit cannot be said for certain that the name mentioned in Ex. 2 is the name of the father of the OP. 2) wherein the only single name mentioned is of one Kasiruddin Sk s/o. Ashun Sk. The OP has stated that the name of her father is Kosimuddin Sk and if that be so, mit cannot be said for certain that the name mentioned in Ex. 2 is the name of the father of the OP. Even if it is conceded for argument sake that the name Kasimuddin Sl as it appears in Ex.1 and the name Kasiruddin Sk as it appears in Ex. 2, is the name of one and the same person, it cannot be said that the said Kasimuddin or Kasiruddin is the father of the OP because the father’s name of Kasimuddin is shown as Hussain Sk in Ex. 1 whereas the father’s name of Kasiruddin Sk is shown as Ashun Sk in Ex.2 ; (iii) The linkage certificate (Ex.4) also shows that Sarifan Bewa (the OP) is the daughter of Kasimuddin Sk but as already stated above the name mentioned in the voters’ list of 1966 is of Kasiruddin Sk and not Kosimuddin or Kasimuddin Sk ; (iv) The OP has stated in her cross examination that her mother Aimona Bewa is still alive but she could not produce any document to show that her mother’s name was ever found recorded in any of the voters’ lists in or after the year 1966 ; (v) As per OP’s evidence, her husband Azibor Sk used to live with her at her father’s residence and he died after about one year of their marriage. This shows that the OP still lives in the house of her father with her mother who is still alive but she has failed to explain as to why the name of her mother was never recorded in any of the voters’ lists at her village ; (vi) Further, the OP has stated that her present age is about 40 years. If that be so, she should have been born in around 1972. If that be so, she should have been born in around 1972. She has submitted voters’ list of 2008 showing her name in the same but she could not give satisfactory explanation as to why her name did not appear in any of the voters’ lists from 1994 and prior to the voters list of 2008 ; (vii) She has stated in her evidence that her father died about 30 years ago but she did not submit the certified copy of any voters’ list after 1966 showing the name of her father as a voter. The name appearing in the voters’ list of 1966 (Ex.2) also appears to be quite doubtful as the name of the purported grandfather of the OP is shown in the voters’ list of 1966 (Ex.2) and in the Kacha Patta (Ex.1) is not the same ; (viii) Ex. 5 is the land revenue paying receipt which shows that the land revenue was paid for the year 2002-03/2011-12 by one Akalu Ali on 13.05.2012 (about a fortnight ago) for and on behalf of Nasimuddin sk and others and as per Ex. 1 (Kacha Patta) Nasimuddin Sk and his brothers are sons of one Hussain Sk and not Ashanu Ali Sk. Therefore, from the documents relied upon by the OP, it appears to me that there is no cogent or trustworthy evidence on record to show that Kasiruddin Sk whose name appears in the voters’ list of 1966 (Ex.2) is the father of the OP and also that the OP’s father and his brothers have landed property in village Dalsingeralga as claimed by the OP because the persons whose names appear in Ex. 1 are sons of Hussain Sk and not to Ashun Ali Sk.” 4. From the above findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, it is found that there is wide variation in the names to which the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to. Although the petitioner in her cross examination named her mother as Aimona Bewa and claimed that she was still alive, but she could not produce a single document reflecting her name. Coupled with this, the petitioner also could not produce any document except the voters’ list of 2008 containing her name. If she was 40 years of age at the time of deposition, her year of birth would 1972 but she failed to produce any document from 1990 to 2008. Coupled with this, the petitioner also could not produce any document except the voters’ list of 2008 containing her name. If she was 40 years of age at the time of deposition, her year of birth would 1972 but she failed to produce any document from 1990 to 2008. She attained the age of voting right in 1990. Although she stated that her father died about 30 years back but could not produce the certified copy of the voter list after 1966 showing her father’s name. That apart, the name appearing in the voters’ list of 1966 (Ex. 2) is also quite doubtful as the name of the purported grandfather of the petitioner is shown in the voter list and in the Kachha Patta(Ex.1) is not the same. 5. Above apart, there are so many discrepancies in the evidence about which the learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed. Such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with lightly exercising writ jurisdiction. The Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal and others reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 while discussing the scope, ambit and jurisdiction of the Writ Court in such matter has observed thus :- “112. Article 226 of the Constitution confers on the High Court power to issue appropriate writ to any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal constituted under the 1946 Act read with the 1964 Order, as noticed above, is required to discharge the quasi-judicial function. The High Court, therefore, has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Tribunal in an appropriate case. The scope of interference with the Tribunal's order, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226, however, is limited. The writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as and when the inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it or if such Court or Tribunal acts illegally in exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, or when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard or violates the principles of natural justice. The certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, the Court cannot review the findings of facts reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal. The certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, the Court cannot review the findings of facts reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal. There is, however, an exception to the said general proposition, in as much as, the writ of certiorari can be issued and the decision of a Tribunal on a finding of fact can be interfered with, if in recording such a finding the Tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible or has refused to admit admissible evidence or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases such error would amount to an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The other errors of fact, however grave it may be, cannot be corrected by a writ court. As noticed above, the judicial review of the order passed by the inferior Court or the Tribunal, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is limited to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record, which also takes within its fold a case where a statutory authority exercising its discretionary jurisdiction did not take into consideration a relevant fact or renders its decision on wholly irrelevant factors. Hence, the failure of taking into account the relevant facts or consideration of irrelevant factors, which has a bearing on the decision of the inferior court or the Tribunal, can be a ground for interference of the Court or Tribunal's decision in exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the High Court. 113. The Apex Court in Sant Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. reported in (2010)13 SCC 336 , reiterating the grounds on which a writ of certiorari can be issued, has opined that such a writ can be issued only when there is a failure of justice and cannot be issued merely because it may be legally permissible to do so. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioners to show that a jurisdictional error has been committed by the statutory authority. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record, as the High Court acts merely in a supervisory capacity and not as the appellate authority. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioners to show that a jurisdictional error has been committed by the statutory authority. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record, as the High Court acts merely in a supervisory capacity and not as the appellate authority. An error apparent on the face of the records means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matters to show its incorrectness. Such error may include giving reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate. It may also include the application of a wrong legal test to the facts found, taking irrelevant consideration into account and failing to take relevant consideration into account, and wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence as well as arriving at a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Such a writ can also be issued when there is an error in jurisdiction or authority whose order is to be reviewed has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law.” 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Now, the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhubri shall ensure that the petitioner is arrested and detained in the detention camp till her deportation to her country of origin i.e. Bangladesh. 7. Let the matter be listed again after one month so as to submit report by the Superintendent of Police (B) Dhubri about the action taken in the terms of this order. 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri shall ensure deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list, if any. 9. Registry shall send down the case records to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgement and order. A copy of the judgement and order may also be furnished to Ms. V.L. Singha, learned State Counsel for his immediate necessary follow up action. Copies shall also be sent to the SP(B), Dhubri and Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, for their immediate follow up action.