JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. - On a reference received from S.P. (B), Goalpara under Foreigners Act, 1964, F.T. Case No. 2549/G/10 was registered against one Kalipada Mahanta and two other persons to decide the validity of citizenship of the petitioners, herein (respondents in the aforesaid case). 2. Upon serving of notice, all the petitioners appeared before the learned Tribunal and contested the case by filing WS and also adduced evidence. It is the case of the petitioners, they could not arrange to submit necessary documents for which they prayed time before the learned Tribunal. Subsequently, though the petitioners appeared with relevant documents, the learned Tribunal held that aforesaid documents were not proper and without taking into consideration of the same declared the petitioners as foreigners of post 1971 stream. 3. According to the petitioners, the above reference as well as the findings of the learned Tribunal are erroneous and without jurisdiction as the learned Tribunal without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to adduce relevant documents has rejected the documents so filed by the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the petitioners at the time of filing their evidence could not arrange all the necessary documents, so on 19.11.2012 they prayed for another date for cross-examination which was allowed. Thereafter, on 1.2.2013 when they appeared with relevant documents, the learned Tribunal opined that such documents are not proper and not admissible documents and by impugned order dated 4.5.2013 has held the petitioners as foreigners. The aforesaid order has been impugned before this Court. 5. Contention of the petitioners is that they have sufficient documents to show that they are not foreigners but Indian citizens and therefore, the petitioners crave leave of the Court to annex the copies of photo identity cards so issued to them by the Election Commission of India. By way of affidavit two petitioners have submitted that other petitioner Kalipada left them after the order of Tribunal. 6. We have heard Mr. B. Sinha learned counsel, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners as well as Ms. P. Baruah, learned ASGI appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3. 7. 6. We have heard Mr. B. Sinha learned counsel, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners as well as Ms. P. Baruah, learned ASGI appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3. 7. The basic grievances canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite having the Relief Eligibility Certificate in their possession, the same were not considered by the learned Tribunal without any cogent reason. According to them, the REC which is prime document ought to have been considered by Tribunal before declaring the petitioners as foreigners. 8. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity, whatsoever, in the decision so rendered by the learned Tribunal. The contention so raised by the petitioners that their documents were not considered by the learned Tribunal is wholly unfounded on the face of record that except filing some photocopies of documents the petitioner have failed to prove the contents of the said documents. 9. To appreciate the rival submissions of both the parties, we find it necessary to reproduce below the findings so arrived at by the learned Tribunal – "I fixed the case for evidence on 1/3/12. On that day respondent prayed adjournment for shortage of documents. Then case was fixed on 31/3/2012. On that day respondent remained absent. Learned advocate prayed adjournment on 4/5/12 respondent prayed adjournment for shortage of documents. On 7/6/12 it was bandh call day so case was adjourned. On 7/7/12 again respondent prayed adjournment for shortage of documents. On 10/9/12 the main respondent Kalipada Mahanta was absent and his daughter Sefali filed petition praying adjournment. On 7/7/12 I allowed prayer with caution. So on 10/9/12 when again respondent prayed adjournment I allowed prayer of respondent as last chance and no more chance. Case was fixed on 19/11/12. On 19/11/12 respondent furnished statement on affidavit of five DWs including three respondents and all three respondents filed petition no. 2709 prayed another date for cross-examination for shortage of documents. Taking very lenient view for interest of respondent I adjourned the case to be only last chance and fixed the case on 1/2/13, a very long date form 19/11/12 because last chance is given based on court diary. On each date we fix two last chance cases. 2709 prayed another date for cross-examination for shortage of documents. Taking very lenient view for interest of respondent I adjourned the case to be only last chance and fixed the case on 1/2/13, a very long date form 19/11/12 because last chance is given based on court diary. On each date we fix two last chance cases. But on 1/2/13 having official business I had to go to Gauhati and as such case was adjourned till 3/4/13. On 3/4/13 respondent came but they are not equipped with proper documents. In the midst of bundle of documents respondent furnished single page Xerox copy of extract copy of voter list 1977 from Golokganj and two sheets of Xerox copy of extract of electoral roll from Golokganj where name of respondent Kalipada or Durgarani are not available. So at the time of checking documents when it has come to my notice, the matter was taken up with ld. advocate. The learned advocate verbally submitted for another short date personally to produce documents. On 9th date for evidence that too on last chance I refused to adjourn the case. Record shows that from 11/8/11 i.e. from first day of appearance of respondent before me there were shortage of documents and after about two years there were shortage of documents. In my view the answering respondents do not have their proper documents to prove their claim because the firisty of written statement shows Xerox copy of registration certificate, Xerox copy of Relief Eligibility Certificate, Xerox copy of land purchased deed etc furnished with written statement of Kalipada Mahanta, Xerox copy of voter list furnished after 1989. The Relief Eligibility Certificate is not at all an admissible document. It is an application format and applicant shows their entry before 1966. But respondents cannot furnish even Xerox copy of extract electoral roll either 1970 pr 1971. The REC bears a signature of B. Kathkatia without date. The Registration Certificate is dated 19/12/74 i.e. after cut off date on 24/3/71. Durgarani furnished Xerox copy of certified copy of voter list 1966 (Xerox from certified copy), 1970 of literature and then 1997 Xerox copy of extract electoral roll which are not at all sufficient to create the link. On the other hand production of R.E.C. and registration in 1974 is a prima facie proof that they came from East Pakistan or Bangladesh. On the other hand production of R.E.C. and registration in 1974 is a prima facie proof that they came from East Pakistan or Bangladesh. If registration would have been before 24th March, 1971, it proves the entrance of the respondents from Pakistan; when it is after 25th day of March, 1971, it is proof of from Bangladesh." 10. We have carefully gone through the LCR. The petitioners herein filed their written statement as on 17.01.2012 after taking seventh adjournment for filing evidence and on the ground of non-availability of documents, they filed their affidavit as on 19.11.2012 praying time for further evidence and documents which was allowed. As the respondents could not furnish their documents till 03.04.2013, the court fixed the case for final order and disposed of the proceeding by order dated 04.05.2013. 11. There is no denial on the part of the petitioners that they had submitted all photocopies of documents and they were not given the opportunity to prove the documents. Record reflects that petitioners filed their documents on 01.02.2013 after long time of filing W/S. The tribunal having found at the time of hearing that no proper documents were filed by the petitioners, they were given further time to produce proper documents but they fail to file the same. The learned Tribunal ultimately held that in spite of getting more than two years time to collect appropriate documents since the date of their appearance, the petitioners failed to produce the requisite documents and they avoided the witness box for cross-examination and have also failed to discharge their onus to prove their citizenship, as has been mandated by Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. 12. After going through the materials on record, it is obvious that the respondents filed only some photocopies of documents after filing the written statement. Though they have referred about the facts that the name of the parents of the petitioners appeared in the voter lists of 1966, 1970, 1977 but no such document was proved or exhibited. In view of such admitted position that no such documents were proved by the respondents as required under the Evidence Act, the respondents by mere filing of photocopies of documents cannot claim to have substantiated their burden that they are Indian citizens by birth. 13. In view of such admitted position that no such documents were proved by the respondents as required under the Evidence Act, the respondents by mere filing of photocopies of documents cannot claim to have substantiated their burden that they are Indian citizens by birth. 13. In Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India reported (2005) 5 SCC 665 , the Apex Court dealt with the modality of proving one's Indian Citizenship. It has been emphasised that the burden of proof is always on the proceedee as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In Sarbananda Sonowal–I, the Apex Court dealing with the burden of proof, made the following observation :- "26 There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A (1) (d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would be necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid pointes. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him." 14. Merely by producing some photocopies, one cannot establish his Indian citizenship. Even in case of production of certified copies of the documents, something more is required as per the Law of Evidence. Merely by producing some photocopies, one cannot establish his Indian citizenship. Even in case of production of certified copies of the documents, something more is required as per the Law of Evidence. As has been held by the Apex Court in (2010) 4 SCC 491 (LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen), even admission of a mere making of exhibit of a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. It was the duty of the petitioners to prove the documents in accordance with law. 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. Thus, the documents, which have not been produced in originals and marked in evidence 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 High Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as appeal over the finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal. It is only when the Tribunal exercise a jurisdiction without being empowered or in excess of it or fails to exercise the vested jurisdiction or acts illegally, the Writ Court exercising its jurisdiction can interfere with the same. The High Court can interfere with the order of the Tribunal exercising its writ jurisdiction only if it is proved that it is a case of no evidence at all or there is error apparent on the face of the record. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited only to correction of errors apparent on the face of the records and does not need long drawn out process of reasons on points whether there may be conceivably two views. 16. It is noted that the learned Tribunal has gone through the documents so filed by the respondents and came to the finding that since the respondents neither furnished the Xerox copies of electoral rolls of 1970-71 nor a single extract copy of voter list of 1977 wherein their names could be found, cannot help their case whatsoever. 16. It is noted that the learned Tribunal has gone through the documents so filed by the respondents and came to the finding that since the respondents neither furnished the Xerox copies of electoral rolls of 1970-71 nor a single extract copy of voter list of 1977 wherein their names could be found, cannot help their case whatsoever. In view of admission by the petitioners themselves that they have only furnished the Xerox copies of documents then how the court of law can accept the authenticity of such documents unless properly proved. 17. It is to be noted that the petitioners herein have filed the following documents in support of their case – (1) Certificate of Registration (1) (Xerox copy) (2) Relief Eligibility Certificate 1964 do (3) Land Purchase Deed 1966 do (4) Extract copy of Voter List 1966 do (5) Extract copy of Voter List 1989 do (6) Extract copy of voter List 1993 do (7) Extract copy of Panchayat Voter List 2007 do 18. In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that Relief Eligibility Certificate is prima facie proof of citizenship, we have considered the aforesaid document (only photocopy) which reveals that there is overwriting over the name of the head of the family, without any initial. In the first column the name of the actual head of the family has been cut and the name of Madab Ch. Mandal (who is stated to be father of petitioner No. 1) has been written without there being any endorsement as to who has corrected the same. Similarly in the second column, the name of Dawri Mandal (who is stated to be mother of petitioner) has been inserted by cancelling the name of Nabin Ch. Das. Such a piece of document (which is not at all proved) can no way be accepted as valid document and has rightly been rejected by the learned Tribunal. 19. It is also observed that while referring the name of father of Durga Rani Mahanta at para 2 of the WS, the name of Madhab Mahanta has been erased and in his place, names of Madhab Mandal and Batachibala Mandal have been inserted. Similarly, the photocopy of the sale deed stated to be executed by so called Madhab Ch. 19. It is also observed that while referring the name of father of Durga Rani Mahanta at para 2 of the WS, the name of Madhab Mahanta has been erased and in his place, names of Madhab Mandal and Batachibala Mandal have been inserted. Similarly, the photocopy of the sale deed stated to be executed by so called Madhab Ch. Mandal has not been proved and another documents filed by the petitioner regarding the extract copy of voter list of 1989 reveals that the name of said Madhab Ch. Mandal (father of petitioner Durga Rani Mahanta wife of said Kalipada Mahanta is mentioned as Alok Ch. Mandal) which is again a doubtful document. Subsequent voter lists of 1997 and 2007 (Xerox copies) will not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim that they are Indian citizenship by birth. 20. As regards the prayer made by the petitioners to consider and accept the identity cards issued by the Election Commission to them, it can be held that such a document which was not produced before the tribunal, cannot be looked into by the writ court, as has been held by the decision of the Division Bench in 2010 (2) GLT 1 (Moslem Mondal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). 21. In view of all above matters on record & findings, we are of the considered opinion that there is no irregularity/illegality or infirmity in the findings so arrived at by the learned Tribunal and needs no interference. 22. Before parting with, we express our serious concern as to how Election Commission of India can issue photo identity cards to these petitioners Durgarani Mahanta and Shefali Mahnata who were already declared illegal migrants, by the learned tribunal as on 04.05.2013 with a direction to delete the names of the petitioners from the voter list of Molondubi village under the constituency, which was not complied with by the respondent authority. Accordingly, the respondent authority is directed to do the needful and to cancel the voter identity cards issued to the petitioners herein. Both the petitioners are hereby directed to surrender their photo identity cards No. KBH 1537833 and KBH No. 1546776 issued on 01.10.2013 before the Election Commission of India forthwith. 23. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 24. Return the LCR forthwith.