JUDGMENT : B.K. Sharma, J. Heard Mr. S. Huda, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned State counsel and Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned A.S.G.I. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.10.2009 of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Golaghat passed in Case No. F.T.G. 135/2007 (State of Assam v. Md. Yasin Ali). By the said judgment, the petitioner has been declared to be an illegal migrant, who entered into India after 25.03.1997 without any valid documents. Accordingly, he has been declared to be a Foreign National under Section 2 (a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 3. As will be evident from the impugned judgment itself, the petitioner after filing the written statement remained absent on 10.09.2008, 22.09.2008, 20.11.2008, 22.12.2008, 06.02.2009, 01.04.2009, 04.05.2009, 19.06.2009, 22.07.2009 and 25.08.2009. We have gone through the record received from the Tribunal. On perusal of the said record, it is found that upon service of notice, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal on 19.05.2007 and prayed for time to file written statement. Prayer was allowed fixing the matter on 20.06.2007 on which date, he remained absent. However, the matter was adjourned to 07.08.2007 on which date also, he prayed for time and was allowed. He again prayed for time on 26.10.2007 and 24.12.2007. He filed his written statement on 06.02.2008 and thereafter, did not adduce any evidence on the dates fixed, namely, 11.03.2008, 08.04.2008 and 14.05.2008. Thereafter, he remained absent on the aforesaid dates without any steps. Situated thus, the learned Tribunal had no other option than to pass the impugned order ex-parte. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not assigned any ground as to why he did not respond to the proceeding. As per the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Assam v. Moslem Mandal reported in 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 809, the Tribunal is empowered to entertain an application for setting aside an ex-parte order only upon showing special/exceptional circumstances, otherwise, the vary purpose of enacting the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Tribunal (Order), 1964 would be frustrated. For a ready reference, para 92 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "92. For a ready reference, para 92 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "92. As discussed above, the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners Act read with the 1964 Order have to regulate their own procedure and they have also the quasi-judicial function to discharge and hence in a given case the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and pass necessary order on an application to set aside an ex-parte opinion, provided it is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the proceeded was not served with the notice in the reference proceeding or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the proceeding, reason for which was beyond his control. Such application, however, should not be entertained in a routine manner. The Tribunal can entertain such application provided the proceeded could demonstrate the existence of the special/exceptional circumstances to entertain the same by way of pleadings in the application filed for setting aside the ex-parte opinion, otherwise the very purpose of enacting the 1946 Act and the 1964 Order would be frustrated. The Tribunal, therefore, would have the jurisdiction to reject such application at the threshold, if no ground is made out." 5. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended thus: "1. That the opposite party stoutly denies the averment that he is not an "Indian Citizen and also an immigrant of some other Country. That in this connection the opposite party begs to submit that he is an INDIAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH and not an illegal immigrant. 2. That the opposite party has been living in a rented house at Golaghat town, 3rd Railway gate, p.o. and p.s. Golaghat for the last 15 years and has been living by band to mouth by way of being a "the lawala" in and around Golaghat town. 3. That prior to shifting to Golaghat town the opposite party had been the permanent resident of Kupatimari, P.O. Bhuragaon, P.S. Laharighat, District Marigaon, Assam and his name was entered into the voter's list of 81 No. Laharighat Assembly Constituency at Sl. No. 105, House No. 342, polling station No-Kupatimary LP School (East) Centre No. 29, Sub Division Marigaon, Mouza Bhuragaon, village Kupatimari, P.S. Laharighqat District Marigaon, Assam of which copy is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 1. 4. No. 105, House No. 342, polling station No-Kupatimary LP School (East) Centre No. 29, Sub Division Marigaon, Mouza Bhuragaon, village Kupatimari, P.S. Laharighqat District Marigaon, Assam of which copy is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 1. 4. That the opposite party's father had possessed immovable property at Kupatimari, under Laharighat police station and that his family suffered a setback due to land erosion has been confirmed by the Mouzadar and the village gaon burha by issuing two certificates, which are being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure II/III. 5. That the O.P. is an Indian Citizen by birth and a bona fide resident of the State of Assam having permanent residence at Kupatimari within the district of Morigaon, Assam and presently residing at Golaghat town 3rd Railway gate and earning his living by humble means and nothing illegality has been done or purported to have done by the O.P." 6. Along with the written statement, he had produced the photocopies of 5 (five) documents, namely:- (i) Certificate of Gaon Panchayat dated 26.07.2001 certifying the he was a resident of the particular village; (ii) Voter list of 1989; (iii) Illegible photocopy of certificate dated 25.05.2009 certifying that the petitioner was a resident of the particular locality; (iv) Another certificate dated 26.07.2001 to the same effect, (v) Illegible photocopy of the voter list of 1966. 7. Needless to say that the photocopies of documents are inadmissible in evidence. That apart, the petitioner did not make any effort to prove those documents by producing the originals, in spite of granting several adjournments. Eventually, he abandoned the proceeding before the Tribunal and remained absent as many as on 10 (ten) dates. 8. Mr. Huda, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition, more particularly, the voter list of 1997 (Typed copy), submits that the petitioner being a voter, he could not have been declared to be an illegal migrant. Apart from the fact that the said voter list of 1997 cannot be taken into account in the writ proceeding in terms of the decision of the Division Bench in Moslem Mandal v. Union of India, reported in 2010 (2) GLT 1, the said document also being much after the cut off date 25.03.1971 cannot be relied upon. 9. Apart from the fact that the said voter list of 1997 cannot be taken into account in the writ proceeding in terms of the decision of the Division Bench in Moslem Mandal v. Union of India, reported in 2010 (2) GLT 1, the said document also being much after the cut off date 25.03.1971 cannot be relied upon. 9. From the prosecution side, the reference was proved by examining the Enquiry Officer, who, in his deposition, categorically stated that during enquiry, the petitioner failed to produce any documents to prove that he is an Indian Citizen. Significantly, this witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner, although sufficient opportunity was given. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. 11. Copies of this order shall be sent to the Superintendent of Police (B), Golaghat and the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat for necessary follow up action for apprehension of the petitioner and deletion of his name from the voter list. Copy of the judgment shall also be sent to Govt. of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs. 12. List the matter after 1 (one) month for submission of compliance report.