JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Goswami, 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 including the records received from the Tribunal. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the common judgment and order dated 21/10/2009 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Hojai in (1) Case No. FT/H/589/2007, (2) Case No. FT/H/588/2007, (3) Case No. FT/H/45/2006 and (4) Case No. FT/H/46/2006. By the said common judgment and order, all the petitioners involved in the said FT Cases have been declared to be foreigners of post 25/03/1971 stream. 3. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are husband and wife, the petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the sons of petitioner No. 2 and late Eusub Ali, who incidentally is the brother of petitioner No. 4. Four separate references were made against each one of them as indicated above and the said references having been answered against them and in favour of the State vide the impugned common judgment dated 21/10/2009, they have filed the instant writ petition challenging the said judgment. 4. It will be pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioner No. 2 and others (not specified) were declared as illegal migrants on 31/03/1999 in IM(D)T Case No. 781/1989. This finds mentioned in the cross examination of petitioner No. 1, who examined himself as DW-1. However, Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said order passed was exparte and an application for setting aside the same was filed which was also taken up for disposal vide the common judgment. However, there is no reference to the IM(D)T order dated 31/03/1999 in the impugned common judgment. 5. In the proceeding before the Tribunal, the State examined 4 (four) witnesses as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. On the other hand, the petitioners examined 3 (three) witnesses as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. PW-1 in his evidence duly proved the verification report (Ext.1) ; FIR (Ext. 2) and the particular form (Ext. 3) furnishing the particulars against the petitioners for making the reference. PW-1 in his deposition stated that during enquiry he interrogated the petitioners regarding their citizenship but they failed to produce any proof of Indian citizenship. PW-1 in his evidence duly proved the verification report (Ext.1) ; FIR (Ext. 2) and the particular form (Ext. 3) furnishing the particulars against the petitioners for making the reference. PW-1 in his deposition stated that during enquiry he interrogated the petitioners regarding their citizenship but they failed to produce any proof of Indian citizenship. He in his deposition also stated about recording the statements of the persons of the locality who in their statements stated that the petitioners came to their village about 10/11 years back. One of the witness stated that the petitioner No. 2 came from Bangladesh. Another witness also supported the said statement. According to their statements, the petitioner No. 2 along with her children came to India from Bangladesh after 25/03/1971. 6. PW-2 in his deposition stated that petitioner No. 2 came to the particular village after 1972. She was first married to Eusuf Ali in Bangladesh from whom 2 (two) sons and 1 (one) daughter were born and were brought up at Bangladesh. After the death of Eusuf, the petitioner No. 1 married her in Bangladesh and 3 (three) children were born out of the said wedlock. It was only after 1972, the petitioner No. 1 took the petitioner No. 2 and came to India from Bangladesh. He in his deposition also stated about public representation alleging that the petitioners were residents of Bangladesh. 7. PW-3 and PW-4 duly corroborated the PW-1. PW-3 in his deposition categorically stated that the petitioner No. 1 married petitioner No. 2 in Bangladesh and came to India after 1972 along with 3 (three) children. PW-4 in his deposition stated that the first husband of the petitioner NO. 2 namely, Eusuf Ali had left for Bangladesh in 1966 after disposing of his landed property. He married the petitioner No. 2 in Bangladesh and 3 (three) children were born including the petitioners No. 3 and 4. Eusuf died in Bangladesh, Later on, the petitioner No. 1 went to Bangladesh and married the petitioner No. 2 and out of the said wedlock another 3 (three) children were born. They came to India after 1972. He categorically stated that he knew that he petitioners were Bangladeshi nationals and they came to India after 1972. He also referred to the public representation alleging that the petitioners are Bangladeshi nationals. 8. They came to India after 1972. He categorically stated that he knew that he petitioners were Bangladeshi nationals and they came to India after 1972. He also referred to the public representation alleging that the petitioners are Bangladeshi nationals. 8. The testimony of the above witnesses went unrefuted in absence of any cross examination by the petitioners. In fact, they declined to cross examine the said witnesses. 9. Although Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the testimony of DW-1 i.e. the petitioner No.1 and the deposition of one Abdul Mannan Master tried to project that the petitioner No. 2 hails from Tripura but nothing is discernible in that direction in the testimony of petitioner No. 1 (DW-1). Similarly in testimony of Abdul Mannan Master, he simply stated about hearing that the petitioner No. 2 was brought from Tripura. However, in the cross examination he admitted that he did not know anything about her. 10. Above apart, DW-1 in his deposition made on 29/08/2007 although declared his age as 53 years (meaning thereby he was born in 1954) but he admitted that he did not cast vote prior to 1993. He also stated that his father died in 1957. Although he stated in his deposition that his wife i.e. the petitioner No. 2 read up to class-I in Tripura but failed to prove the same by any documentary evidence. 11. Discussing the entire evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has recorded the following finding :- “On perusal of the evidence of both sides, it is seen that the Respondent Nizamuddin of FT/H/589/2007 have corroborated the witnesses examined by the State as to the marriage of his mother Musstt. Joygun Nessa by the Respondent Rajab Ali after the death of his father Yusuf Ali. The Respondent Inamuddin has lied that Mustt. Joygun Nessa is his anut while in fact he is the son of Joygun Nessa through Yusuf Ali, his father. The witness PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have specifically stated that Rajab Ali was originally in village Kathalpur but he had gone to Bangladesh and married Joygun Nessa after the death of her husband Yusuf Ali and three children were born to them. The specific claim of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 is that Rajab Ali came to India with Joygun Nessa, Nizamuddin and Inamuddin after 1972 from Bangladesh. The specific claim of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 is that Rajab Ali came to India with Joygun Nessa, Nizamuddin and Inamuddin after 1972 from Bangladesh. The document Ext-A produced by Rajab Ali8 shows that Nekjan Bibi is the wife of Irfan of Kathalpur and she was recorded as a voter in the year 1966. Even if we accept Nekjan Bibi to be the mother of Rajab Ali, the Respondent, the three witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have furnished satisfactory explanation that Rajab Ali had gone to Pakistan (Bangladesh) and married Joygun Nessa there and subsequently came back to India after 1972. Ext. B, the voter list of 1993 does not in any way prove that the Respondent Rajab Ali is a citizen of India. Similarly the certified copy of the Jamabandi, Ext-C containing the name of Respondent Rajab Ali as son of Kurpan Ali does not throw any light as to his possession of land in India prior to 1-1-1966. The two Respondents Nizamuddin and Inamuddin have not been able to adduce any satisfactory evidence to show that they were born in India. Mere inclusion of their names in the voter list of 1997 and 2005 does not prove in any way their claim of being Indian citizens by birth. Similarly, I find no evidence at all on record to show that the Respondent Musstt Joygun Nessa was born in India including Tripura. Even if the Respondent Rajab Ali was in India he had gone to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and had married his sister-in-law Joygun Nessa there and three children were born to them. Thereafter they came to India in 1972. Thus the Respondent Rajab Ali is also an illegal migrant from Bangladesh in 1972.” 12. The ambit, scope and jurisdiction of the writ Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence is well settled. The learned Tribunal having appreciated the evidence on record in its true perspective, it is not for the Writ Court to sit on appeal over the findings of the Tribunal re-appreciating the evidence on record. In this regard, it may not out of place to refer to para 112 and 113 of the Full Bench decision in the case of the State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal and others reported in 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 809. “112. In this regard, it may not out of place to refer to para 112 and 113 of the Full Bench decision in the case of the State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal and others reported in 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 809. “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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 13. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed upholding the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon shall apprehend the petitioners immediately and confine them in the detention camp till such time they are deported to their country of origin. 14. Let the matter be listed again after one month so as to submit report by the Superintendent of Police (B) Nagaon and the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, about the action taken in the terms of this order. 15. The Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon shall ensure deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list, if any. 16. Registry shall send down the case records to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment and order. A copy of the judgment and order may also be furnished to Ms. M. Goswami, learned State Counsel for his immediate necessary follow up action. Copies shall also be sent to the SP(B), Nagaon and Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, for their immediate follow up action.