JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State counsel and Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel representing the Union of India. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 29/11/2008 of the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh passed in case No. FT 39/06 (PE No. 882/2001) (DDT No 1663/2002) (State Vs. Ismail Ali). By the said order the learned Tribunal discussing the entire evidence on record, declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25/03/1971. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record and illegally declared the petitioner to be a foreign national. On perusal of the records received from the Tribunal, it is found that before the Tribunal, the petitioner produced the purported certified copy of the NRC of 1951. However, on a bare perusal of the said document, no signature of the issuing authority is discernible. Moreover, the value of the tickets affixed to the folio is 50P and 25P which are also not punched. The columns pertaining to date of application; date fixed for notifying the requisite number of stamps and folios; date of delivery of the requisite stamps and folio ; date on which the copies were ready for delivery and date of making over the copy to the applicant, are all blank. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in the impugned judgement. 3. In the said documents, names of A Rahman, Amuja Khatun, Lalmia and Hasmat Bibi appeared showing Amuja as wife of A. Rahman. A Rahman is shown as son of Jalal. Lalmia is shown as son of Jalal and Hasmat Bibi as wife of Lalmia. The petitioner also produced photocopy (extract only) of 1961 voters list so as to project that A. Rahman son of Jalaluddin and Asia Khatun wife of A. Rahman appearing against Sl. No. 334 and 335 are his parents. On the other hand, as noted above, in the purported NRC of 1951, his projected mother’s name is Amuja Khatun. This aspect of the matter has also been discussed in the impugned judgement. The other two documents produced before the Tribunal are that of certificates of the Gaonbura dated 20/10/2008 and 27/08/2002 certifying that the petitioner is known to them. On the other hand, as noted above, in the purported NRC of 1951, his projected mother’s name is Amuja Khatun. This aspect of the matter has also been discussed in the impugned judgement. The other two documents produced before the Tribunal are that of certificates of the Gaonbura dated 20/10/2008 and 27/08/2002 certifying that the petitioner is known to them. Needless to say that Xerox/photocopy of the documents is inadmissible in evidence. Even otherwise also, as has been held by the Apex Court in L.I.C. of India and Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in 2010 (4) SCC 491 , mere production of some documents or exhibiting the same without proving the contents thereof is not enough. In this connection, para 31 of the judgement is quoted below :- “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 Curt. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court.” 4. As discussed in the judgement of the Tribunal, if his mother’s name is Asia Khatun, the name Amuja Kha appearing in the purported NRC of 1951 cannot be his mother. That apart, address shown is village No. 1, Shibpur Mouza, Kopahbari, P.S. Morajhar, District- Nagaon. However, as per the deposition of the petitioner, his father belongs to Village Nizdaboka, P.S.- Daboka, P.S. Jamunamukh district- Nagaon. He never contended that he had ever lived at Village No. 1 Shivpur under Morajhar P.S. Similarly, the Xerox copy of the voter list of 1961, is of Jamunamukh Constituency pertaining to Village- Hathikuli, Mouza- Nomati. Although, the said photocopies of the documents are not inadmissible in evidence, but the petitioner on being asked to clarify the position, admitted that the said document pertains to Village- Hathikuli, Mouzaq Nomati. It was never the case of the petitioner that they had ever lived in the said village. There is no explanation from the side of the petitioner as to how such discrepancies could be accepted. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner that his parents were from Nizdaboka,P.S. Daboka, Jamunamukh. It was never the case of the petitioner that they had ever lived in the said village. There is no explanation from the side of the petitioner as to how such discrepancies could be accepted. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioner that his parents were from Nizdaboka,P.S. Daboka, Jamunamukh. Discussing the further evidence in respect of the two certificates referred to above, the learned Tribunal found the following :- “More over, evidence of DW 2 is uncorroborated evidence. Not even the O.P. supported his evidence that his parents were living at No. 1 Shibpur under Murajhar P.S. and village Hatikhuli of Kalajhar as stated by D.W. 2. Further D.W. 2 does not know Hatikhuli is under which P.S. and what is the Mauza of Hatikhuli. As per D.W. 2 Hatikhuli (Kalajhar) is under P.S. Murajhar but it is under Lanka P.S. and Mouza Namati. D.W. 2 further admitted that he did not receive summon to adduce evidence in favour of the O.P. but the Gaonbura of Niz Daboka Sri Kamal Ch. Bora sent him to adduce evidence on his behalf. As such the D.W. 2 is not summoned by the O.P. but the Gaonbura has sent him. But why the Gaonbura did not face the court is not known. Under the circumstances it is very clear that D.W. 2 is a got up witness and got up for the purpose of proving the so called N.R.C. and the Xerox copy of the voter list of 1961.” 5. Referring to the purported NRC about which discussions has been made above, the learned Tribunal has recorded thus :- “Record says N.R.C. was of one “A. Rahman” S/o. Jalal and his wife Manuza Khatoon of no.1 Shivpur, P.S. Murajhar, not of abdur Rahman S/o. Jalaluddin and his wife Asiya Khatoon of Niz Doboka under Jamunamukh P.S. O.P’s brothers one still living at Niz Doboka as stated by O.P. but none of them came to support O.P’s case. No document on landed property could be produced by the O.P. Moreover Ex. Ka the so called N.R.C. although bears a round seal purportedly of S.P. Nagaon, but documents is certified not by the S.P. Nagaon but by the General Secy of the Jamiat. There is no date on the so called round seal. No document on landed property could be produced by the O.P. Moreover Ex. Ka the so called N.R.C. although bears a round seal purportedly of S.P. Nagaon, but documents is certified not by the S.P. Nagaon but by the General Secy of the Jamiat. There is no date on the so called round seal. On the other hand on perusal of the record it appears that a sper the direction of the Sujpdt. Of Police, Dibrugarh the enquiry Officer made an enquiry against the O.P. and there after submitted his report. The report was placed before the screening committee who scrutinized the same and sent its recommendation to the Supdt. Of Police who also having satisfied with the prima facie case, initiated the reference. And I found that the reference was made following the rules, Records shows that O.P./ came from Vill Babubazar, P.S. Kutani, Dist- Dhaca, Bangladesh after 25th March/71. As per S. 9 of the Act bur5den of prove the case lies on the O.P. which he measurably failed.” 6. As recorded in the impugned judgement, there is also discrepancies in the matter of summoning the witness. This aspect of the matter need not detain us. The petitioner having miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1964, the learned Tribunal rightly passed the impugned judgement declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25/03/1971 and I see no reason to interfere with the said judgement. 7. The scope, ambit and jurisdiction of the Writ Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence are all well settled. The Writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence like an appellate authority and return a different finding. It is not a case of recording of any perverse finding by the Tribunal. In this connection, Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal and others reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809. In this connection, para 112 and 113 of the said Full Bench decision in Moslem Mondal (Supra) is reproduced below :- “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. 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. 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. 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.” 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Now, the Superintendent of Police (B), Dibrugarh shall ensure that the petitioner is arrested and detained in the detention camp till his deportation to his country of origin i.e. Bangladesh. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Now, the Superintendent of Police (B), Dibrugarh shall ensure that the petitioner is arrested and detained in the detention camp till his deportation to his country of origin i.e. Bangladesh. 9. Let the matter be listed again after one month so as to submit report by the Superintendent of Police (B) Dibrugarh about the action taken in the terms of this order. 10. The Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, shall ensure deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list, if any. 11. 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 Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for his immediate necessary follow up action. Copies shall also be sent to the SP(B), Dibrugarh and Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, for their immediate follow up action.