JUDGMENT : P.K. Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.03.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5549/2013, refusing to interfere with the ex- parte order dated 27.04.2012, passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal (1st) Morigaon in FT Case No. 72/2007 (Police Reference F.T. Case No. 73/2006) (State of Assam vs. Md. Nurul Haque and 2 Others). 2. Under the order dated 27.04.2012, rendered in F. T. Case 72/2007, present appellants were adjudged to be foreigners under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, who allegedly entered into India (Assam) illegally after 25.03.1971. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment dated 06.03.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5549/2013, the appellants approached this court alleging serious infirmity in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP© No. 5549/2013, as well as in the judgment rendered by the learned F.T. in F T Case No. 72/2007. 4. We have heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Asstt. S.G.I., appearing for the Union of India as well as Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned G.A. appearing for the State respondents. 5. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that appellants claimed to be the citizens of India by birth. While Appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 claim to be the husband and wife in relation, appellant No. 3 is said to be the son of appellant No. 1 and 2. 6. It has been stated that a reference was made by Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon, Assam, in short, SP (B), to the Foreigners Tribunal, Morigaon. On receipt of reference, the Foreigners Tribunal (1st) Morigaon registered a case vide F.T. Case No. 72/2007 and issued notice dated 05.05.2007 upon the appellants directing them to appear before the Tribunal personally or through pleader on 13.06.2007 and to file W.S. and to contest the case, if they desired so. 7. The appellants, having received the notice, entered appearance before the Tribunal, engaged an advocate to represent them and also prayed for time to file W.S. The appellants filed W.S. on 28.03.2008 denying the allegation brought against them by SP (B), Morigaon. The appellants had submitted necessary documents along with W.S. to show that they are bonafide citizen of India. 8. The appellants, having received the notice, entered appearance before the Tribunal, engaged an advocate to represent them and also prayed for time to file W.S. The appellants filed W.S. on 28.03.2008 denying the allegation brought against them by SP (B), Morigaon. The appellants had submitted necessary documents along with W.S. to show that they are bonafide citizen of India. 8. However, after submission of documents, they did not appear before the Court believing that their documents along with W.S. aforementioned are sufficient to prove their case that they are not foreign nationals. But owing to absence of the appellants before the Tribunal over a long period of time, the learned Tribunal on 27.04.2012, passed the ex-parte order declaring all the appellants to be foreigners entering into India after 25.03.1971. 9. Against that order, appellants preferred a writ petition before this court in 2013 which was registered as WP(C) No. 5549/2013. The learned Single Judge on hearing the learned counsel for the parties did not notice any infirmity in the judgment under challenge and as such, dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of the Tribunal. 10. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants along with W.S. had submitted all the documents to show that they are bonafide citizens of India. But those documents were not taken into consideration by the Tribunal resulting in order under which the appellants were declared foreigners. 11. What is more, on 27.04.2012, the appellants were present before the Court and without giving them an opportunity to place their version on the matter in question; the Tribunal had passed the ex-parte order aforesaid. According to Dr. B. Ahmed, such finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 12. This contention was opposed to by learned counsel for the respondents stating that the appellants were given ample opportunity to prove that they are Indian citizens. However, except for filing W.S. and some documents therewith, they never care to produce and prove those documents in accordance with prescription of law. 13. Rather they remained absent from appearing before the Tribunal for a period more than 4 years and as such, the learned Tribunal was duty bound to pass the ex-parte order declaring the appellants herein to be foreigners. Being so, there is no infirmity in any of the judgments under challenge. 14. 13. Rather they remained absent from appearing before the Tribunal for a period more than 4 years and as such, the learned Tribunal was duty bound to pass the ex-parte order declaring the appellants herein to be foreigners. Being so, there is no infirmity in any of the judgments under challenge. 14. We have considered the rival submissions having regard to the materials on record as well as the judgments under challenge. But before proceeding further, we find it necessary to have a look at the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in WP© No. 5549/2013. 15. On perusal of the judgment, rendered by learned Single Judge, we have found that the learned Single Judge found fault with the writ proceedings on the grounds more than one. One of the grounds on which the writ proceeding was dismissed was that appellants in seeking reliefs from the writ court suppressed some material facts from the notice of the court. For ready reference, the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below :- “8. As noted above, the impugned order is ex-parte, as the petitioners after filing the written statement and the photocopies of the aforesaid documents did not respond to the proceeding. On perusal of the case records, it appears that the petitioners on receipt of notice, first time appeared on 11.9.2007 and thereafter prayed for time, which was granted fixing the matter on 15.12.2007. Thereafter, the written statement and the documents (all photocopies) were submitted on 28.3.2008. After doing so, they remained absent on 3.9.2008, 18.4.2009, 7.12.2009, 18.3.2010, 13.7.2010, 25.10.2010, 28.12.2010, 5.3.2011, 9.5.2011, 27.7.2011, 15.10.2011, 2.1.2012 and eventually on 27.4.2012, when the final order was passed. At this stage, Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the English translation of the impugned order passed in Assamese on 27.4.2012 has submitted that on the date of the final order, the petitioners were present. However, when the said English Translation is compared with the English version, it is found that the petitioners were not present even on 27.4.2012. Thus there is misrepresentation in making wrong English translation of the Assamese version of the impugned order.” 16. Referring to the decision of this court in State of Assam Vs. However, when the said English Translation is compared with the English version, it is found that the petitioners were not present even on 27.4.2012. Thus there is misrepresentation in making wrong English translation of the Assamese version of the impugned order.” 16. Referring to the decision of this court in State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mandal reported in (2013) 1 GLT 809, the learned Single Judge held that the ex-parte order rendered by Tribunal under the Foreigners Act, 1946 cannot be set aside merely on asking. The petitioners or appellants are to assign extraordinary/special reasons to show that for reason beyond their control, they could not appear before the Tribunal when the proceeding was taken up for hearing etc. 17. In the case in hand, not to speak of showing extraordinary/special reasons, the appellants did not even assign any reason for vacation of ex-parte order under which the appellants were declared foreigners. Since there was no payer for vacation of ex-parte order, learned Single Judge refused to vacate the ex-parte order impugned in WP(C) No. 5549/2013, For ready reference same is reproduced below:- “10. On perusal of the writ petition, I do not find not to speak of any ground, not even whisper against the ex-parte order and the ground of non-appearance before the Tribunal on the aforesaid dates throughout the writ petition. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal without stating anything about their non-appearance on the aforesaid dates, which naturally resulted in the impugned ex-parte order. The petitioners having not assigned any ground for setting aside the ex-parte order, there is no question of setting aside the same. On that score alone coupled with the aforesaid misrepresentation, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Above apart, in view of the above finding on the basis of the facts so staring on the face of it, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. While the petitioners did not prove the contents raised in the written statement and the documents (all photocopies) filed before the Tribunal, the prosecution examined 2 witnesses who supported the enquiry report. While the petitioners did not prove the contents raised in the written statement and the documents (all photocopies) filed before the Tribunal, the prosecution examined 2 witnesses who supported the enquiry report. On perusal of the related materials, it is found that one Sri Mogen Konwar, Gaonburha of the particular village when examined during preliminary enquiry, stated that the petitioner No. 1 during the course of one of the conversation stated before him that he had come from Bangladesh and that he had communication with the people there. As per the statement of the said Gaonburha, the petitioners do not have any land in their name, but they are occupying Government land.” 18. We have found that the appellants all along claim that along with the WS, they had produced all the documents which clearly demonstrate that the appellants are Indian citizens by birth. But learned Tribunal ignored all those documents in deciding the reference against them. However, such an argument holds no water whatsoever. 19. It is not in dispute that documents which were produced with the WS were never proved in accordance with the prescription of law. It may be stated here that mere production of documents before the Court/Tribunal is not enough. Such documents need to be proved in accordance with the prescription of law. A person, who did not prove such documents, cannot take shelter under the plea that he is uneducated and illiterate person in a proceeding initiated for setting aside the order/judgment passed against him. 20. Despite above being the situation, learned Single Judge also considered the case of the appellant on merit too and have found that the claim of the petitioners/appellants that they are Indian citizens by birth is found to be totally unreliable since the statements in the documents, relied on by the appellants, are made are found to be too contradictory, too inconsistent on very many fundamental points. For ready reference, same is reproduced below:- “2. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioners are all Indian citizens by birth. For ready reference, same is reproduced below:- “2. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioners are all Indian citizens by birth. In support of such plea, the petitioners have enclosed photocopies of the voter list of 1965, 1997, photocopy of the school certificate dated 14.5.2012 purportedly issued by the Headmaster I/C of Rowmari M.E. Madrassa, birth certificate dated 6.8.2002 pertaining to the petitioner No. 3 issued by the Director of Health Services and certificate of the Gaonburha certifying the petitioner No. 2 as the resident of the particular locality. 3. In the first document i.e. the voter list of 1965, there appears the name of Abdul Hamid, aged 24 years, whom the petitioner No. 1 has projected as his father. In the second document i.e. the voter list of 1997, the name of one Nurul Haque, Son of Abdul Hamid appears. The petitioner claims that he is the said Nurul Haque. As to what are the other documents have been referred to above. 4. The petitioners have also enclosed the copy of the written statement that was filed before the Tribunal along with the typed copy of the written statement. 5. I have heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned CGC and Ms. K. Devi, learned State Counsel. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the record received from the Tribunal. 6. Before proceeding further with the matter, it will be pertinent to mention here that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner No. 1 in support of the writ petition, he has declared his age as 35 years. The said affidavit was sworn in on 16.9.2013. On the other hand in the reply affidavit sworn in on 12.2.2014, he has declared his age as 55 years. Further, if the 1997 voter list is taken into account, the petitioner No. 1 was 20 years of age and if that be so, his present age will be about 37 years. That apart in the written statement filed before the Tribunal, there are gaps (nothing indicated) in respect of age of the petitioner No. 1 and 3. There is also gap in respect of the age of the petitioner No. 1 in the supporting affidavit of the written statement. That apart in the written statement filed before the Tribunal, there are gaps (nothing indicated) in respect of age of the petitioner No. 1 and 3. There is also gap in respect of the age of the petitioner No. 1 in the supporting affidavit of the written statement. On the other hand, age of the petitioner No. 2 was declared as 40 years on the date of the affidavit sworn in on 28.3.2008 and if that be so, her present age will be about 46 years. On the other hand, in the school certificate (Annexure-C), her date of birth is shown as 31.12.1984. 7. On perusal of the case records received from the Tribunal, it is found that along with the written statement filed by the petitioners, certain documents were also enclosed, which are photocopies of the voter list of 1965 containing the name of one Sri Abdul Hamid, purported NRC of 1951 containing the name of one Abdul Hamid, voter list of 2005 containing the name of the petitioner, birth certificate dated 6.8.2002 containing the name of the petitioner No. 3 showing his date of birth as 22.12.2001 and voter list of 1966 containing the name of one Hasen Ali. However, none of the documents had been proved by the petitioner as required under the Evidence Act. Needless to say that mere filing of some photocopies of the documents without proving the same in reference to the original cannot lead to admission of those documents. Moreover as has been held by the Apex Court in LICI Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 mere admission of document cannot led to the proof of contents of the document. There is nothing to show that the particular name of Abdul Hamid referred to in the voter list of 1966 is the father of the petitioner. Moreover, there is also no explanation as to why his name did not appear in any of the voter list except 1966.” 21. We have considered the above conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the light of materials available on record and have found no reason to differ with the decision, arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 22. We have considered the above conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the light of materials available on record and have found no reason to differ with the decision, arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 22. Situation being such, we have found no infirmity whatsoever in the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal or for that matter judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge affirming the judgment of the learned Tribunal. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 24. The respondent authorities are directed to comply with the direction rendered in paragraph 11 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. For ready reference same is reproduced below:- “11. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Directions are issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon and SP(B) Morigaon to take immediate steps towards deletion of the name of the petitioners from the voter list and their immediate detention for deportation to their country of origin”. 25. Let copies of this judgment be furnished to the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon and SP (B) Morigaon for information and necessary action. 26. Another copy be furnished to Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Asst. SGC for necessary communication to the authorities concerned. 27. Another copy be sent to the Government of India in the Home Department for appraisal.