ORDER B.K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.11.2013 of the Foreigners Tribunal (2nd), Morigaon passed in FT (D) Case No. 446/10 (Police Ref. Case No. 1490/98) (State of Assam v. Md. Najrul Islam). By the said judgment, discussing the evidence on record the learned Tribunal has declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.3.1971. 2. As recorded in the impugned judgment and order, the purported birth certificate (Ext-Ka) was obtained on 28.6.2012, after initiation of the proceeding. In the said birth certificate, purportedly issued by the Registrar, Birth & Death, Lahorighat PHC, the date of birth of the petitioner stood recorded as 31.12.1975. Dealing with the present proceeding, an order was passed on 26.8.2015 calling for a report in respect of the said birth certificate also annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1. As recorded in the order dated 16.9.2015, the birth certificate shown issued by Lahorighat Health Centre on 28.6.2012 did not have the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the event of issuance of birth and death certificate after expiry of one year of the event, a specific recommendation of the jurisdictional Deputy Commission is required. 3. When the matter was taken up again on 21.9.2015, referring to the letter dated 16.9.2015 of the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, it was categorically recorded that the Annexure-1 birth certificate is product of forgery. Significantly, the Registrar of Birth & Death, Lahorighat PHC in his letter dated 16.9.2015 stated that the documents pertaining to issuance of certificates for the year 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were all missing. Such a stand on the part of the said authority is totally unbelievable. Having regard to the seriousness of the matter, the SP(B), Morigaon and the O/C, Lahorighat Police Station were impleaded as respondents No. 7 and 8. 4. After the aforesaid development, the matter was again taken up on 7.10.2015. The learned Standing Counsel, Health Department had produced the letter dated 7.10.2015 of the Registrar, Birth and Death of Lahorighat PHC stating therein that the signature appearing in the birth certificate does not belong to him. Along with the said letter, he had also enclosed copies of the FIR, police report, letter to the Joint Director of Health Services, Morigaon etc. 5. Along with the said letter, he had also enclosed copies of the FIR, police report, letter to the Joint Director of Health Services, Morigaon etc. 5. The matter was again taken up on 9.10.2015 and the following order was passed. "As recorded in the orders passed on 21st September, 2015 and 7th October, 2015, the Annexure-1 birth certificate dated 28th June, 2012 under registration No.5819/12 issued by the Registrar, Birth & Death, Laharighat PHC, certifying that the petitioner was born on 31st December, 1975 is a fake one. As recorded in the said orders, the letter "75" appearing against the purported date of birth of the petitioner as "31-12-1975" is the product of tempering. In response to the order passed on 7th October, 2015, the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon has furnished report dated 7th October, 2015 to Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State counsel. As per the said report, the registration Nos.1 to 11758 of 2011; 1 to 12603 of 2012; 1 to 14205 of 2013 and 1 to 1577 of 2014 were used by some unknown miscreants towards issuance of the fake birth certificates. The petitioner's birth certificate annexed to the writ petition appears the registration No.5819/12 and was issued on 28th June, 2012 and falls under the above categories. As per the report dated 6th May, 2015, referred to above, on the basis of the FIR lodged, Laharighat P.S. Case No.364/2015 has been registered under Sections 468/471/420 IPC. One Anowar Hussain @ Borpetia has also been arrested. This is a serious matter of issuance of fake birth certificates, which requires immediate intervention of the highest authority. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Assam, shall stand impleaded as respondent No.8. Necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition shall be carried out by hand. He is directed to take immediate measures to unearth the racket involved in issuance of such fake birth certificates. He will bear in mind that such birth certificates will have a ramification in the preparation of NRC undertaken in the State of Assam. The petitioner having taken recourse to falsehood, the interim order dated 20th August, 2014 operating in his favour stands vacated. The Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon is directed to take the petitioner into custody immediately. However, he shall not be deported. The petitioner having taken recourse to falsehood, the interim order dated 20th August, 2014 operating in his favour stands vacated. The Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon is directed to take the petitioner into custody immediately. However, he shall not be deported. List the matter again on 5th November, 2015 for furnishing report both by the Director General of Police, Assam and the Superintendent of Police (B), Morigaon. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State counsel, for his necessary follow up action." 6. On 5.11.2015, the learned State Counsel had produced the letter dated 4.11.2015 of the Assam Police Headquarter under the signature of the Addl. Director General of Police (A). Along with the said letter, copy of the letter dated 28.10.2015 and the report dated 2.11.2015 were enclosed. As per the report of the SP(B), Morigaon dated 2.11.2015, upon registration of Lahorighat P.S. Case No. 364/2015 under Section 468/471/420 IPC in respect of issuance of forged birth certificate, it was found as follows: "Progress report of Laharighat P.S. C/No. 364/15 U/S 468/471/420 IPC On 23/07/15 Complt. Md. Suruj Ali, S/O Md. Mahmud Ali lodged a written ejahar to O/C Laharighat P.S. stating that he has been working in the Laharighat PHC as a multipurpose worker. He came to know that on Borpetia fertilizer shop owner of and one Md. Mojibur, S/o Matob Ali of Vill-Garam Bazar, Kathani, PS-Laharighat making fake birth and death certificates in the name of health department by using forged seal and signature. The copies of forged birth certificate issued by the accd. Person were attached with the copy of FIR. Hence the above noted case was registered by O/C Laharighat P.S. SI Abdul Kadir Faruki was entrusted to investigate the case. During investigation I/O visited the P.O. and drawn up sketch map with proper index. He seized 03 copies of fake birth certificates which were produced by the complt. With the FIR. The I/O has already examined the complt. Md. Suruj Ali (2) Dr. Nurul Amin (3) Mamhadul Islam and (4) Imradul Islam and recorded their statement. In course of investigation I/O found that Md. Mojibur Rahman, S/o Matob Ali @ Mato, Vill-Garam Bazar, PS Laharighat is the prime accd. Of this case. The I/O has already arrested one accd. Anowar Hussain @ Borpetia, S.o Lt. Makbul Hussain, Vill-Barkhabal and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court on 07/10/2015. In course of investigation I/O found that Md. Mojibur Rahman, S/o Matob Ali @ Mato, Vill-Garam Bazar, PS Laharighat is the prime accd. Of this case. The I/O has already arrested one accd. Anowar Hussain @ Borpetia, S.o Lt. Makbul Hussain, Vill-Barkhabal and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court on 07/10/2015. During interrogation arrested accd. Anowar Hussain @ Borpetia stated that Md. Mojibur Rahman made a criminal conspiracy and made some forged birth and death certificates using his laptop in the fertilizer shop of accd. Anowar Hussain located at Garam Bazar and was selling the fake certificates amongst the local people. The said accd. Person Mojibur Rahman has been absconding till date evading police arrest. Various efforts have been continuing to nab the culprit to find out the underground racket of making and selling fake birth and death certificates amongst the people in lieu of money. Submitted for favour of your kind perusal." 7. From the above what has transpired is that the birth certificate, on which the petitioner has placed reliance is the product of forgery. On a bare perusal of the certificate, it is apparent that the letter "75" is overwritten. That apart, no recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon is discernible in the certificate, which is the condition precedent towards issuance of the same inasmuch as the certificate was shown issued on 28.6.2012 certifying the date of birth of the petitioner as 31.12.1975, which is after 37 years. By no stretch of imagination, such certificate could have been issued after 37 years. Perhaps the Lahorighat PHC was also not in existence in 1975. 8. The petitioner having taken recourse to falsehood in filing the writ petition, on that count alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, independent of the said position, I have considered his case in reference to the record received from the Tribunal. 9. I have heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Bora, learned State Counsel and Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. 10. Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that irrespective of the allegation of forgery in respect of the birth certificate, the petitioner is entitled to get a declaration that he is a citizen of India. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. 10. Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that irrespective of the allegation of forgery in respect of the birth certificate, the petitioner is entitled to get a declaration that he is a citizen of India. According to him, the finding recorded in the impugned judgment is perverse. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Bora, learned State Counsel and Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel, representing the Union Government submit that the Tribunal having appreciating the materials on record in its true perspective, no interference is called for in respect of the impugned judgment. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire materials on record. 12. Referring to the aforesaid certificate dated 28.6.2012, the learned Tribunal in its impugned judgment has rightly held that the certificate was obtained after initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner with discrepancy in the age. If the date of birth recorded in the said certificate, which is 31.12.1975 is taken into account, the petitioner could not have been 48 years of age as was reflected in the reference. In the Ext-3 report of the SP(B), Morigaon, age of the petitioner was recorded as 48 years and the report was prepared on 9.9.1998. If the petitioner was 48 years of age in 1998, he could not have been born in 1975. 13. As discussed in the impugned judgment, the verification officer proved the report as Ext-1. He also proved the Ext-2 report of the Electoral Registration Officer and so also the Ext-3 report of the SP(B), Morigaon. He also proved the signature appearing therein. The evidence available on record has revealed that the petitioner examined himself and another witness (DW-2). The petitioner himself did not exhibit any document, but only stated that he was born at the particular village. It is the DW-2, who had exhibited certain documents (Ext-ka to Ext-Jha). Ext-Ka is the above referred birth certificate. Ext-Kha and Ga are copies of the voter lists of 1966 and 1970, in which name of one Intaz Ali has been incorporated, whom the petitioner projected as his father. Ext-Gha is the voter list of 1993 incorporating the name of the petitioner. Ext-Unga is a land document of 1977. Ext-Ka is the above referred birth certificate. Ext-Kha and Ga are copies of the voter lists of 1966 and 1970, in which name of one Intaz Ali has been incorporated, whom the petitioner projected as his father. Ext-Gha is the voter list of 1993 incorporating the name of the petitioner. Ext-Unga is a land document of 1977. Ext-Cha is the purported NRC issued by a particular political party. By no stretch of imagination such a document is acceptable. Ext-Chha and Ja are revenue paying receipts pertaining to one Ishabali and not relatable the petitioner. Ext-Jha is a job card of NREGA showing registration date as 5.10.2007. 14. Above are the documents on the basis of which the petitioner wanted to establish that he is an Indian citizen and that too by birth. In cross examination, DW-2 categorically admitted that he was not a position to say as to who had collected the documents. Mere projection of name appearing in the voter list as one's father or mother does not lead to discharge the burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 , the Apex Court has held thus: "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 Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court." 15. The learned Tribunal having appreciated the evidence on record in its true perspective and the petitioner having failed to discharge the burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, about which detail discussions have been made by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920 , I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal rightly passed the impugned judgment. Sitting in the Writ Court am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment like an appellate authority re-appreciating the evidence on record. Sitting in the Writ Court am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment like an appellate authority re-appreciating the evidence on record. The scope, ambit and jurisdiction of the Writ Court is well defined, about which detail discussions have been made by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal reported in 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 809. For a ready reference, paragraphs-112 and 113 of the said judgment is 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. 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 v. 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." 16. For all the aforesaid reason, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The petitioner, who is presently in the detention camp shall be deported to his country of origin i.e. Bangladesh immediately. His name shall also be deleted from the voter list, if any. 17. Let copies of this order be furnished to Mr. R.K. Bora, learned State Counsel and SP (Border), Morigaon and Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon for necessary follow up action. Copies may also be sent to the Government of Assam in the Home Department and Union of India in the Home Department for appraisal and necessary action. 18. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this order immediately.