JUDGMENT AND ORDER : B.K. Sharma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has put to challenge the Annexure-B order dated 12.11.2009 of the Foreigner's Tribunal, Dibrugarh passed in Case No. FT 28/06 (P.E. No. 145/01) (State Vs. Sandhya Rani Paul). By the said order the petitioner has been declared to be a Foreigner of post 25.3.1971. 2. We have heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmick, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms P Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned standing counsel. We have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal. Referring to the evidence on record Mr. Bhagawati submits that there being no rebuttal on the part of the respondents in respect of the evidence adduced by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the version of the petitioner and declared her as an Indian citizen. Countering the said argument Mr. Bhagawati, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner having failed to discharge the burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigner's Act, 1946. No interference is called for in respect of the impugned order. 3. Responding to the proceeding before the Tribunal the petitioner had first appeared on 23.11.2008 along with her engaged counsel and filed a petition praying for time. Prayer was allowed fixing the matter on 3.12.2008 on which date also her engaged counsel again prayed for time and the same was allowed fixing the matter on 10.12.2008. On 10.12.2008 also prayer was made for adjournment and accordingly the same was allowed and the matter was fixed on 17.12.2008. On 17.12.2008 also the petitioner filed a petition seeking adjournment on the ground of illness. However, no medical certificate was produced. As recorded in the order dated 17.12.2008 in the earlier proceeding before the IMDT also the petitioner had adopted the same approach. Situated thus the learned Tribunal fixed the matter on 20.12.2008 for ex-parte proceeding and order. Eventually the reference was answered against the petitioner on 20.12.2008. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20.12.2008 the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 3332/09 with the plea that she could not respond to the proceeding as no notice was served on her. Eventually the reference was answered against the petitioner on 20.12.2008. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20.12.2008 the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 3332/09 with the plea that she could not respond to the proceeding as no notice was served on her. On the basis of the said plea the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.8.2009 remanding the matter back to the Foreigner's Tribunal for fresh adjudication. It was clearly recorded in the order that according to the petitioner after transfer of the case to Foreigner's Tribunal, Dibrugarh from the earlier IMDT no notice was served upon her and resultantly she could not adduce any evidence. This plea is absolutely false inasmuch as, as disclosed from the records of the Tribunal, on receipt of the notice from the Foreigner's Tribunal the petitioner had appeared along with her Advocate on four different occasions and prayed for time. 5. However, since the matter was remanded back, the learned Tribunal again took up the matter and answered the reference against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 12.11.2009. From the records received from the Tribunal it appears that the petitioner had filed written statement dated 7.9.2009 claiming her father's name as Dina Bandhu Paul. According to the written statement the petitioner had married one Binode Paul who had landed property. In support of the claim made in the writ petition the petitioner submitted 5(five) documents. The documents submitted are :- (1) A typed copy of citizenship certificate dated 12.9.1954. (2) Undated self declaration for inclusion of the name in the voter list. (3) A certificate dated 18.2.03 of the Block Development Officer, Satchand RD Block, Sabroom, Govt. of Tripura showing receipt of application dated 12.2.03 from the petitioner for shifting her home from the particular place. (4) A certificate dated 2.3.06 of the Chairman, Doomdooma Town Committee showing the petitioner to be the resident of particular locality. (5) One purported certified copy of voter list 1965 incorporating the name of one Dina Bandhu Rudra Paul. 6. The learned Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record found (also revealed from record) that all the documents were either typed copy or Xerox copy. As noted above, the citizenship certificate projected by the petitioner is a typed copy and as admitted by the DW-2, original was not with the petitioner. 6. The learned Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record found (also revealed from record) that all the documents were either typed copy or Xerox copy. As noted above, the citizenship certificate projected by the petitioner is a typed copy and as admitted by the DW-2, original was not with the petitioner. The so called certified copy of the voter list 1965 is also not reliable inasmuch as the latters 65 appearing after 1.9.19 is the subsequent insertion. The name of the constituency etc. is also not indicated in the document. On the face of it such a certificate is unacceptable. Needless to say that the PRC purportedly issued by the Doomdooma Town Committee dated 12.1.06 cannot determine the citizenship of the petitioner. Needless also to say the self declaration in the particular document for inclusion of the name in the voter list cannot confer citizenship on the petitioner. 7. As has been claimed by the petitioner, she was born in 1959. If that be so she attained the age of majority in 1980 and thus her name ought to have been included in the voter list. Not a single voter list incorporating the name of the petitioner could be produced. 8. Discussing the entire evidence on record the Tribunal has recorded the following :- "In those questions put by the Court DW-2 admitted that the so called citizenship certificate is a copy. Original is not with him. He also admitted that he brought the O.P. to Doomdooma in 1980 only. But in the so called certificate of B.D.O. Sabroom date of leaving Sabroom by the O.P. was 12.2.03. He also admitted that PRC is issued by the court but he obtained the PRC from the Chairman Town Committee. The so called certified copy of the voter list of 1965 is also a copy does not bear name of the vote Kendra and P.S. No. The year "1965" is separately written. He also said that on the basis of the so called voter list of 1965 which is filed in this Court, he obtained his Citizenship Certificate from Tripura. He himself said that since 1974 he has been living at Doomdooma but how he could obtain his Citizen Certificate from Tripura in 1987 it is not understood. He also said that on the basis of the so called voter list of 1965 which is filed in this Court, he obtained his Citizenship Certificate from Tripura. He himself said that since 1974 he has been living at Doomdooma but how he could obtain his Citizen Certificate from Tripura in 1987 it is not understood. He also said that "he knows submission of false document is a criminal offence, his documents are not false." In view of the above referred evidence produced b y the O.P. now turning to the merit of the case it is seen that, DW-2 contradicts the evidence of DW-1 (O.P.) by saying that he brought the O.P. and her husband to Doomdooma in 1980 whereas as per O.P. she came before 50 years and she understood year months etc. DW-1 (O.P.) never said that there house was destroyed by fire in riot before she came to Doomdooma. All the documents are either typed copy or Xerox copy. The so called Citizenship Certificate said to be of her father is a typed copy. Original is not with the O.P. The so called certified copy of the voter list of 1965 said to be of her father is also a copy no "Certificate" seen, name of constituency not mentioned. The year 1965 is written separately. Prima facie it is not even a copy of voter list. None has certified the document. Xerox copies Carbon Copies or typed copies are not admissible in evidence, hence these two documents did not help the O.P. The 3rd document is also a copy of the Voter list of 1993 of Doomdooma Constituency, so no help to the O.P. 4th document is said to be issued by the B.D.O. of Satchand R.D. Block, Sabroom, Tripura which also remained unproved and contents of the document is, one Smti. Sandhya Rani Paul, W/O. Binod Paul, a resident of Vill. Rajnagar under Satchand R.D. Block left the village on 12.2.03 which is not the case of the O.P. As per O.P. she came to Doomdooma before 50 years and as per her brother (DW-2) he brought her in 1980. Sandhya Rani Paul, W/O. Binod Paul, a resident of Vill. Rajnagar under Satchand R.D. Block left the village on 12.2.03 which is not the case of the O.P. As per O.P. she came to Doomdooma before 50 years and as per her brother (DW-2) he brought her in 1980. As per the 4th document of so called B.D.O. the person concern in favour of whom it is said to be issued was at Rajnagar till 2.2.03, DW-2 although stated that they are unable to bring witness from Tripura on verbal prayer of the Advocate time allowed to produce her further evidence if any and an order was passed to take steps for summoning her witness. But O.P. did not take steps. Next date i.e. on 29.9.09 O.P. again submitted petitions for issuance of summons to on Sudhir Paul of Rajnagar, Sabroom, W/Tripura. But O.P. could not furnish father's name of the witness. His petition is rejected because without father's name of the witness summon cannot be issued. This is nothing but a strategy of the O.P. for dragging the case again. The 5th document is a so called PRC said to be issued by the Chairman, Doomdooma Town Committee in the name of one Sandha Rani Paul which also remain unproved. O.P. did not try to produce the Chairman of the Town Committee to prove her PRC. Chairman Town Committee is not authorised person to issue PRC. However, on examination, the document found forged. Because in the Brahmaputra Valley the state language is Assamese. But the so called Certificate was written in Bengali and against the father's name. This 5th document proved that all other documents (copies) are false and forged document for which she could not produce the original documents." 9. As has been held by the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corpn. Of India & Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 , mere production of certain documents does not lead to discharge of burden of proof of the proceeding that he is not a foreigner. For a ready reference para 31 of the judgment 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. For a ready reference para 31 of the judgment 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 Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court." 10. The learned Tribunal having appreciated the evidence on record, towards arriving at the particular finding, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence like an appellate authority to arrive at a different finding. The scope, ambit and jurisdiction of the writ court is well defined. For a ready reference, we may refer to the following observation of the Full Court in the State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal & Ors. Reported in 2013 (1) GLT 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. 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. 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. Question (i): Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is not a foreigner? 11. For all the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. However, irrespective of the dismissal of the writ petition the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Expulsion Act 1950 and the Govt. of India's Notification dated 7.9.2015. 12. However, irrespective of dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents will consider about the protections provided to such illegal migrants vide notifications dated 7th September, 2015 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, by which amendments have been brought to the provisions of the passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and so also to the Foreigners Order, 1948. In terms of the said amended provisions, the persons belonging to minority communities in Bangladesh and Pakistan, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Parsis and Budhists, who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and entered into India on or before 31st December, 2014 are entitled to exemption as provided for by the said amendments. Copes of this order shall be sent to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Tinsukia and the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia.