JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Rumi Kumariphukan, J. 1. Petitioner herein has challenged impugned judgment and order passed ex-parte dated 16.11.05 whereby she has been declared as foreigner in F.T. Case No. 189/2004. According to petitioner, on receipt of notice from Foreigners Tribunal, she made her appearance on 10.6.04. She filed her written statement along with documents showing her as Indian citizen, case was fixed on 15.6.04 for hearing and order but, however, on that day, matter was not taken up and no date was given in case. By an order dated 16.11.05 she was been declared as foreigner by learned Tribunal, which she came to know only this year. contention of petitioner is that as she has filed written statement she was not informed about next date of hearing fixed by learned Tribunal. So she was under impression that matter was settled and she is not required to appear again. She lost her contract with engaged lawyer and as such, she was totally unaware about case. 2. Further contention of petitioner is that though court issued 2nd notice afresh after matter was fixed for hearing on 15.6.04 but no notice served upon her and as such it is alleged that proceeding before learned Tribunal is illegal and ex parte order dated 16.11.05 is liable to be set aside, as she has sufficient document to prove her case that she is an Indian national. By filing an additional affidavit petitioner further affirmed that no 2nd notice was received by her and although in 2nd notice her signature appears but same is not her signature and other two persons whose names appear in 2nd notice as witness namely Nakul Sutradhar and Phanindra Sutradhar are her brother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. Whereas her father-in-law Phanindra Sutradhar expired on 27.1.1988. Her brother-in-law Nakul Sutradhar could not remember receiving any notice from Tribunal where he signed as witness. 3. Considered submission of Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for petitioner who has strenuously urged before Court that petitioner has appropriate documents in her possession to prove her citizenship. Had learned Tribunal given her a proper chance for hearing on matter, she could have proved her case and it has also been contended that in view of non-service of 2nd notice upon petitioner, ex-parte order so passed is liable to be set aside. Had learned Tribunal given her a proper chance for hearing on matter, she could have proved her case and it has also been contended that in view of non-service of 2nd notice upon petitioner, ex-parte order so passed is liable to be set aside. Thus it is submitted that learned Tribunal has committed manifest error while declaring petitioner as a foreigner without considering written statement and documents so filed by petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. G. Sarma, representing Union of India and Mr. M. Bhagabati, representing State respondents have submitted that petitioner having failed to discharge burden of proof towards establishing that she is an Indian citizen, challenge made to impugned order is a futile exercise. Referring to amended provision of Foreigners Tribunal order, it is submitted that specific time limit has been laid down as regards service of notice and hearing of matter, as such, petitioner ought to have responded to proceeding to prove her Indian nationality, discharging burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of Foreigners Act. 5. We have given due consideration to submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and perused entire materials on record including record received from learned Tribunal. On perusal of judgment and order dated 16.11.05 as well as on perusal of record it is evident that notice was duly served and petitioner appeared before Tribunal on 10.6.04 and she filed written statements and documents. learned Tribunal fixed next date 15.6.04 for hearing and order. But, however, on said date case was not taken up which was put up on 7.5.05 and learned Tribunal taking note of absence of opposite party, re-issued 2nd notice to petitioner fixing 2.6.05 and notice was returned after due service and on 2.6.05 learned Tribunal recorded about due service of notice and gave another chance to petitioner for her appearance fixing 22.6.05 and on that day also petitioner did not turn up and thereafter, on 22.7.05 due to absence of petitioner after service of 2nd notice proceeded for ex-parte hearing fixing 23.8.05 ex parte hearing and thereafter, on 16.11.05 learned Tribunal examined Process Server who proved due service of 2nd notice upon petitioner and only thereafter, impugned ex-parte order was passed. 6. We are of considered view that above matters on record are clearly indicative of fact that petitioner was given reasonable opportunities to prove her case. 6. We are of considered view that above matters on record are clearly indicative of fact that petitioner was given reasonable opportunities to prove her case. Although after very first appearance of petitioner, case was not put up before learned Tribunal on 15.6.04 but as soon as case again put up before Tribunal on 7.5.05 learned Tribunal issued fresh notice to petitioner and only after ensuring due service of 2nd notice Tribunal has passed impugned judgment and order, denial of receipt of 2nd notice by petitioner is nothing but a false pretext, which can be inferred from her evasive denial. After going through matters in LCR as regards service of 2nd notice, it reveals that same notice was received by petitioner herself in presence of her husband as well as her father-in-law. clear signature of petitioner on said notice is indicative of service of notice which has already been proved by Process Server. It is also noted that one of witnesses to notice is Gakul Sutradhar who is husband of petitioner and who remains present in said case by filing attendance on behalf of petitioner. Further fact that one of witness to notice father-in-law, who is stated to have expired prior to service of notice, cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence in this regard. Or next, submission that her brother-in-law could not remember receiving any notice deserves no consideration. 7. In view of all above, we are of considered view that there is no any irregularity oi illegality in proceeding of learned Tribunal and it is petitioner who has failed to discharge her burden of proof towards establishing Indian citizenship in terms of Section 9 of Foreigners Act in spite of getting sufficient opportunities to prove her case. Such a conduct of petitioner to challenge such lawful order of Tribunal, by resorting to falsehood, cannot be a ground to interfere with impugned order. Nowhere in petition petitioner properly explained as to reasons for her remaining absent before learned Tribunal, after filing of written statement. In State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (2013) 1 GLT 809 (para 92), it has been held that ex-parte order passed by Tribunal cannot be interfered and set aside in a routine manner unless on exceptional ground, otherwise very purpose of enacting Foreigners Act, 1948 would be frustrated. 8. In State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (2013) 1 GLT 809 (para 92), it has been held that ex-parte order passed by Tribunal cannot be interfered and set aside in a routine manner unless on exceptional ground, otherwise very purpose of enacting Foreigners Act, 1948 would be frustrated. 8. For reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed upholding impugned judgment and order of learned Tribunal. Consequently, Superintendent of Police (Border), Darrang as well as Udalguri is hereby directed to apprehend petitioner and to confine her in detention camp till she is deported to country of her origin. 9. Deputy Commissioner, Darrang will ensure deletion of name of petitioner from voter list and other consequential action as necessary. 10. Registry shall send down case record to learned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment and order. Copy of this order may also be furnished to learned State Counsel for its follow-up action and copies may also be sent to all concerned as indicated above.