JUDGMENT : Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 21st July, 2011 of the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon passed in FT(D) Case No. 594/2006 (ERO Reference No. MYC 29/97/Case 2171) (Police Reference D/N Case No. 2255/97) (State of Assam Vs. Musstt. Jahura Begum), followed by the judgment dated 27th July, 2011 passed by the same Tribunal on the aforementioned case. While by the first judgment, the Tribunal answering the reference declared the petitioner to be a foreigner under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, by the second judgment dated 27th July, 2011 while rejecting her review application made the same declaration. I have heard Mr. MH Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and so also Mrs. M. Goswami, learned State counsel. 1 have also considered the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. 2. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, she contended that she is a citizen of India by birth. She also stated that her parents' names, namely, Fazar Ali and Khatemon Nessa, were enlisted in the voter lists of 1965 and 1971 and also in subsequent orders. However, there was no statement as to whether her name also entered in any voter list and/or in any other documents. She also did not refer to any certificate etc. of the appropriate authority. She filed Exhibit-Ka; Exhibit-Kha; Exhibit-Ga and Exhibig-Gha voter lists and Jamabandi for surveyed villages. In the LCR, there is a certificate dated 28th June, 2011 purportedly issued by one Subodh Debnath, the Gaonburah of Dongabori Mouza. This certificate is without any exhibit number. It is also on a plain paper without any letter head and only a seal purportedly of Dongabori Mouza appears. By the said certificate, it was certified that one Ms. Jahura Khatun, daughter of Late Fazar Ali of village 2 No. Bongalbori is a habitant of the village. There is a later insertion in the certificate certifying that she got married with Md. Hossen Ali, son of Late Taniruddin. 3. By the said certificate, it was certified that one Ms. Jahura Khatun, daughter of Late Fazar Ali of village 2 No. Bongalbori is a habitant of the village. There is a later insertion in the certificate certifying that she got married with Md. Hossen Ali, son of Late Taniruddin. 3. While it is true that names of Fazar Ali and Khatemon Nessa appear in the voters list (extract only) of 1965 and so also in the voter list of 1971 and also that of one Johura, wife of Hosen in the voter list of 1989, but there is nothing to show that Fazar Ali and Khatemon Nessa are the parents of the petitioner inasmuch as except the said certificate, there is nothing to show that she is the daughter of Fazar Ali and Khatemon Nessa. The said certificate also names only Late Fazar Ali and not Khatemon Nessa. Moreover, as noted above, the said certificate is not an authenticated one and being a private document ought to have been proved by examining the author of the said certificate to prove the contents thereof. However, the said course of action was not adopted by the petitioner. It is in the above circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 about which the Apex Court has vividly discussed in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920 . 4. On perusal of the LCR, it is found that the suspicion arose when the name of the petitioner was found included in the draft voter list of 1994 that was prepared pursuant to the direction of the Election Office. As per the deposition of PW-1, during verification/inquiry, the petitioner was asked to produce valid documents but she could not produce any. Although she claimed that she was born in 1957 at Nagaon but failed to produce any prove. When the PW-1 visited her on the second time, she confessed that her original house is in Bangladesh in the District of Syllet in Karkigaon village under Madhupur Police Station. She also spoke in Bengali. It was in such circumstances, the report was submitted against her, which was exhibited as Exhibit-1. 5. Although PW-1 was cross-examined by the petitioner, he could not be dislodged from what he stated in his chief. She also spoke in Bengali. It was in such circumstances, the report was submitted against her, which was exhibited as Exhibit-1. 5. Although PW-1 was cross-examined by the petitioner, he could not be dislodged from what he stated in his chief. He in his cross-examination stated that he has visited the petitioner thrice. The verification report on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to was also clarified in the cross-examination. The petitioner was also examined as OPW-1, who in her deposition stated that her parents had cast votes. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she did not produce any document to show that her father was a resident of Bongalbari. She also admitted that there is no land document standing in the name of her father. She also admitted that she could not submit any document relating to her birth and birth place. One Mujammil Hoque purported cousin of the petitioner was examined as OPW-2, who in his deposition stated that the name of the father of the petitioner appeared in 1965 and 1971 voter lists. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was not aware as to when the petitioner exercised her voting right. The petitioner also examined one Shri Mantaz Ali, said to be her own brother, who also in his deposition, stated about inclusion of the name of Fazar Ali in the voter lists of 1965 and 1989. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Moslem Mondial & Ors. reported in (2013) 1 GET 809 and in Abdul Khalique (Md.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) GLT 941 submits that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner having not been confronted by the prosecution the learned Tribunal ought not to have answered the reference against the petitioner. 7. In Abdul Khalique (Md.), the appellant's version that his grandfather's name was Abdul Wahab was supported by witness Nos. 2 and 3, who incidentally was the Gaonburah and co-villager. In the instant case, although the Gaonburah issued the above referred certificate, but he was not examined to prove the contents thereof. The OPWs-2 and 3 are interested witnesses. It was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to examine independent witness, more particularly, the Gaonburah. 8. 2 and 3, who incidentally was the Gaonburah and co-villager. In the instant case, although the Gaonburah issued the above referred certificate, but he was not examined to prove the contents thereof. The OPWs-2 and 3 are interested witnesses. It was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to examine independent witness, more particularly, the Gaonburah. 8. In Moslem Mondal (supra), the appellant had proved 10(ten) documents marked as Exhibits-A to J. She could also prove the names of her parents appearing in the electoral rolls of 1965 and 1970 followed by the 1989 electoral roll in which her name appeared. In the instant case, although the petitioner named her parents, as aforesaid, but failed to examine any independent witness, more particularly, the Gaonburah, to prove that the name appearing in the voter lists of 1966 and 1977 are relatable to her. 9. The Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr., Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 has held that mere filing or accepting a document in Court does not amount to proof of its contents. Admission of documents in Court may amount to admission of its contents but not the truth. For a ready reference, paragraph 31 of the said judgment 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." 10. Strictly speaking, although no review application was maintainable, but the learned Tribunal entertained the same filed by the petitioner and by its detailed order dated 27th July, 2011 rejected the same. Although the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of the review application, but the same is available on record. In the review application, the petitioner only contended that certain documents were not considered by the learned Tribunal. However, the said review application was not signed by the petitioner nor any specific grounds certified by the engaged counsel were urged. It was simply an application filed on 22nd July, 2011 by her engaged counsel. In the review application, the petitioner only contended that certain documents were not considered by the learned Tribunal. However, the said review application was not signed by the petitioner nor any specific grounds certified by the engaged counsel were urged. It was simply an application filed on 22nd July, 2011 by her engaged counsel. However, the learned Tribunal entertained the same and passed the impugned order with the following reasoning: "(5) I have carefully perused the records and heard argument from both sides. O.P.W. 2 proved and exhibited only 2(two) documents, namely, the voter list, 1965 of 82 No. Morigaon Constituency containing the name of Fazar Ali, purported father of the O.P., Jahura Khatun as Ext. Ka and the voter list, 1971 of 82 No. Morigaon Constituency containing the name of Fazar Ali, purported father of the O.P., Jahura Khatun as Ext. Kha. O.P.W. 3 proved the Jamabandi & voter list, 1989 as Ext. Ga & Gha. Although the O.P., Musstt. Jahura Khatun was 60 years old on the date of deposition on 18.03.2011, she could not produce a single voter list containing her name as a voter prior to 1989 which caste a doubt about her existence in Assam prior to 1971. She also did not produce any certificate from Panchayat Secretary/President regarding her marriage. The certificate issued by the Gaonburah was not proved as required by law. According to evidence of O.P.W. 2, Fazar Ali father of the O.P. died about 3 (three) years back, but there was no voter list in the name of said Fazar Ali after 1971. The O.P. could not produce any certificate to the affect that she was born in Assam although she claimed her citizenship by birth. The documents submitted by the O.P. are not sufficient to establish that she was born in Assam and to claim her citizenship by birth. Although she claimed that she casted her votes at Dangtala and also at Bangalbari village several times, not a single voter list of Dangtala and Bangalbari in her name was produced. On the other hand O.P.W. 2 denied his knowledge about the existence of any village named Dangtola. The documents submitted and proved by the O.P. are insufficient to establish her citizenship by birth as claimed by her." 11. On the other hand O.P.W. 2 denied his knowledge about the existence of any village named Dangtola. The documents submitted and proved by the O.P. are insufficient to establish her citizenship by birth as claimed by her." 11. The learned Tribunal having appreciated the entire evidence on record, it is not for the writ Court to sit on appeal over such finding re-appreciating the evidence once again. The scope, ambit and jurisdiction of the writ Court is well settled about which discussions have been made by a Full Bench of this Court in Moslem Mondal (supra). For a ready reference, paragraphs 112 and 113 of the said judgment are quoted 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. 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. 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." 12. Above being the position, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments dated 21st July, 2011 and 27th July, 2011 of the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon passed in FT(D) Case No. 594/2006 (ERO Reference No. MYC 29/97/Case 2171) (Police Reference D/N Case No. 2255/97) (State of Assam Vs. Musstt. Jahura Begum) and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The grounds assigned in the writ petition cannot be said to be good or sufficient not to speak of being exceptional towards setting aside the ex-parte order. The Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon shall verify the said fact and take necessary follow up action regarding detention and deportation of the petitioner. Simultaneously, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon shall ensure deletion of her name from the voter list, if found. 13. The Registry shall transmit the case records to the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon, Assam alongwith a copy of this order. 14. Copies of this order shall also be sent to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Morigaon and the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. Another copy of this order shall also be furnished to Mrs. M. Goswami, learned State counsel, for his necessary follow up action. List the matter after 1 (one) month for submission of report by the Superintendent of Police (Border) and the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon.