ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam and Ms. G. Sharma, learned counsel for the Central Government. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon, Court No. 10 at Dabaka in FT(D) Case No. 339/2015 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner having illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 3. It is seen that on a reference made by the then Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 with the allegation that petitioner is a foreigner having illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971, FT(D) Case No. 339/2015 was registered in the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon, Court No. 10 at Dabaka. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner where after he had entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed written statement contending that he was not a foreigner as alleged but an Indian citizen by birth. In the course of the proceeding, petitioner gave evidence as DW-1 and exhibited as many as 10 documents. Learned Member considered the evidence adduced but declined to accept the version of the petitioner. The documents exhibited were found to be without any credibility and accordingly not accepted. Consequently, declaration was made that petitioner is a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream who had illegally entered into India (Assam) without any valid document. 4. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 5. This Court by order dated 18.04.2016, had issued notice and requisitioned the case record from the Tribunal. An interim order was passed directing the respondents not to deport the petitioner from India subject to his appearance before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Hojai with adequate surety. 6. Contention of the petitioner is that he is a citizen of India by birth and names of his parents Fajal Karim and Khairun Nessa appeared in the voters list of 1965 under Rupahihat Legislative Assembly Constituency (LAC). He was born on 30.10.1966 and brought up at village Uttar Ashinagar under Dabaka Police Station in the district of Nagaon. He read up-to class V in Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed MV School. He married Afia Begum and has got four sons and three daughters out of the wedlock. He was born on 30.10.1966 and brought up at village Uttar Ashinagar under Dabaka Police Station in the district of Nagaon. He read up-to class V in Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed MV School. He married Afia Begum and has got four sons and three daughters out of the wedlock. In 1998, he shifted his residence to Hojai Markaj New Colony, Borpukhuri under Hojai Police Station leaving other family members at Uttar Ashinagar. His name appears in the voters lists of 1997 and 2005 under No. 91 Hojai LAC. In the notice dated 07.09.2015 issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner, it was mentioned that petitioner was suspected to be a foreigner who had entered into India (Assam) between 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 but in the final order, Tribunal declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. Learned Member misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record and came to an erroneous finding causing prejudice to the petitioner which requires interference. 7. While learned counsel for the petitioner submits on pleaded lines, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal to warrant interference. 8. Rival submissions have been duly considered. Also perused the materials on record including the record requisitioned from the Tribunal. 9. In the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer dated 18.01.2009, which is available in the record, the Enquiry Officer remarked that during enquiry, it revealed that petitioner was a suspected Bangaldeshi foreigner who had entered into India after 25.03.1971, covered by the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In his statement before the Enquiry Officer, petitioner had stated that when the concerned police officials had sought for documents to prove his Indian citizenship, he could not show any document. On the basis of this report, reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border) to the Tribunal with the specific allegation that petitioner had entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971 without any valid document. After registration of the reference, on 07.09.2015, Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner fixing 24.09.2015 for appearance. In the notice, Tribunal though mentioned that petitioner was suspected to be a foreigner, the stream to which he belonged, i.e., whether 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 or post 25.03.1971 was not marked out. After registration of the reference, on 07.09.2015, Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner fixing 24.09.2015 for appearance. In the notice, Tribunal though mentioned that petitioner was suspected to be a foreigner, the stream to which he belonged, i.e., whether 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 or post 25.03.1971 was not marked out. It was a notice in printed form with the two streams of foreigners mentioned and the stream which was not applicable was required to be struck off. Perhaps learned Member could have taken some more caution while issuing the notice by striking off that stream of foreigner which was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Be that as it may, notice was served upon the petitioner where after he had entered appearance and submitted written statement through his counsel on 08.10.2015. However, discrepancy in the notice as is being highlighted in the writ petition was not pleaded in the written statement. Therefore, it can be said that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non-striking off the inapplicable stream of foreigner by the Tribunal in the notice since more than clear that the allegation against the petitioner was that he was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India after 25.03.1971 and the petitioner was confronted with this allegation during the enquiry preceding the reference. In his written statement, petitioner stated that he was born and brought up in the village Uttar Ashinagar under Hojai Police Station in the district of Nagaon. His father's name appeared in the voters list of 1965 under Rupahihat LAC and also appeared in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) of 1966 from the said constituency. At that time, residence of his father was at village Pub Mukund Ati under Rupahihat Police Station. Later on, he shifted to Uttar Ashinagar under Hojai Police Station where his name appeared in the voters list of 1971 under No. 93 Hojai LAC. Name of the petitioner along with his father appeared in the voters list of 1997 in respect of the said constituency. Petitioner had shifted from Uttar Ashinagar to Hojai Town and thereafter he has been a resident of Hojai Town. He stated his father's name as Fajal Karim but in some documents, his father's name was recorded as Md. Fajal Karim, in some others as Foijul Karim and in some as Faizal Karim. Petitioner had shifted from Uttar Ashinagar to Hojai Town and thereafter he has been a resident of Hojai Town. He stated his father's name as Fajal Karim but in some documents, his father's name was recorded as Md. Fajal Karim, in some others as Foijul Karim and in some as Faizal Karim. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal explaining the discrepancy. 10. In his evidence-in-chief, petitioner more or less stated the same thing as in the written statement and exhibited the following documents:- 1. Voters list of 1965 reflecting the names of his parents; 2. NRC of the year 1966; 3. Voters list of 1971 reflecting the name of his father; 4. Voters list of 1997; 5. Voters list of 2005; 6. Voters list of 2010 where name of the petitioner and his wife appear as residents of Hojai; 7. School certificate of the petitioner; 8. Electors Photo Identity Card; 9. Certificate of Ward Commissioner, Hojai Municipal Board; 10. Affidavit of petitioner. 11. In his cross-examination, petitioner admitted that he did not know when his father had shifted to Dabaka. He also did not know about brothers and sisters of his father, their names and residence. 12. On due appreciation of the evidence adduced, learned Member came to the conclusion that evidence adduced by the petitioner was not at all credible. Citizenship status of the petitioner was clouded with doubts. He, therefore, held as follows: "In support of his claim of the Indian nationality, the OP/DW-1 in his examination-in-chief has produced and exhibited certain documents therewith and he was also cross-examined. I have carefully gone through and perused the documents relied upon and exhibited by the OP herein and also thread-barely scrutinised the same. i. Ext.1 is certified copy of the voters list of 1965 wherein at Sl. No. 318 the name of OP's father is recorded as Fajal Karim S/o Noor, aged 55 years in the year of 1965, having his village name mentioned as Pub Mukunda Ati, PS Hojai under Rupahihat LAC. The mother's name of the OP is also recorded therein at Sl. No. 326 as Khairun Nessa W/o. Fajal Karim aged 30 years. In his cross-examination, the op herein has admitted that his father's name was Fajal Karim S/o. Nur Hussain who had expired in the year of 2005 in the age of 80 years. The mother's name of the OP is also recorded therein at Sl. No. 326 as Khairun Nessa W/o. Fajal Karim aged 30 years. In his cross-examination, the op herein has admitted that his father's name was Fajal Karim S/o. Nur Hussain who had expired in the year of 2005 in the age of 80 years. If so, then the year of birth of the OP's father should be in or about in the year of 1935. However, if the year of birth of the OP's father was 1935, then his age in 1965 should be 30 years and not 55 years as mentioned in Ext.1. That apart, as per own admission of the OP/DW-1, his father had died in 2005 in the age of 80 years. If it is so, then it indicates that his father was born in or about the year of 1920 and if so, then his age in 1965 should be 45 years and not 55 years as mentioned in Ext.1. Similarly, as per the OP, his mother's name appears at Sl.No.326 of Ext.1 as Khairun Nessa W/o Fajal Karim, aged 30 years in 1965. As per the own version of the OP/DW-1, he has stated in his cross that his mother expired in the year of 2007 in the age of 65 years. If the OP's mother was 65 years of age in 2007 then her year of birth ought to have 1942 and from that point of view, her age in 1965 should be 23 years only and not 30 years as mentioned in Ext.1. Besides the above, in Ext.1 the father's name of the OP is recorded at Sl. No. 318 and his mother's name at Sl. No. 326. There is absolutely no mention at all in the evidence of the OP/DW-1 as to why Sl. Nos.319 to 325 are missing in Ext.1 and/or as to whose names should have been there in Sl. Nos. 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324 & 325 of the said Ext.1. Such variations in the ages of the OP's parents as indicated above has not been explained or clarified in any manner in the evidence of the OP/DW-1 rendering the Ext.1 to be most untrustworthy and unreliable. ii. Nos. 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324 & 325 of the said Ext.1. Such variations in the ages of the OP's parents as indicated above has not been explained or clarified in any manner in the evidence of the OP/DW-1 rendering the Ext.1 to be most untrustworthy and unreliable. ii. Ext.2 is a downloaded copy of the NRC voters details in respect of the father of the OP herein in which the name of the father of the OP is mentioned as Fajar Karim S/o Noor instead of Fajal Karim S/o Noor Hussain as mentioned in Exts.1 and 3. Although in Ext.2, the number and name of the constituency is 87 No. Rupahihat LAC, yet, in Ext.1, the assembly constituency has no number at all. Besides the same, the OP's father's name registered in the excerpt of the document stated to be NRC is neither admissible as a primary evidence nor a secondary evidence and as such the same cannot be relied upon in support of the OP's claim of Indian citizenship. iii. Ext.3 is the certified copy of the voters list of 1971 in which the OP's father's/grandfather's names are correctly entered as Md. Fajal Karim S/o. Noor Hussain aged 50 years in 1971. First of all, the House No. as entered in the 1965 voters list normally not to have changed in 1971 because door to door enumeration of the voters were not carried out separately in 1971 and as such at least the House No. of the voter should have been the same like Ext.1. Above apart, as discussed above, in respect of Ext.1, if the year of birth of OP's father was in 1935 then in Ext.3 his age should have been 36 years only and not 50 years (50 years in Ext.3 ought to have 61 years in terms of Ext.1 as it was 55 years in 1965). Above apart, as discussed above, in respect of Ext.1, if the year of birth of OP's father was in 1935 then in Ext.3 his age should have been 36 years only and not 50 years (50 years in Ext.3 ought to have 61 years in terms of Ext.1 as it was 55 years in 1965). Moreso, as per own admission of the OP/DW-1 in his cross, his mother expired in the year 2007 if so then without any manner of doubt, she had survived in the year 1971 and up-to the vote year of 2005 but to utter shock, her name is not mentioned in Ext.3 and as such, the Exts.1 and 3 are not the actual names but the same are the purported names because, it is a matter of convenience to pick up any name from the voters list resembling the chosen name so as to project the same as one's parents name. Exts.1 and 3 as mentioned above, therefore bearing gross discrepancies which casts a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the version of the OP/DW-1 as well as about his nationality. iv. Ext.4 is the certified copy of the voters list of 1997 in which apart from the own name of the OP, his parents as well as brother and his wife names are enlisted as the residents of village Uttar Ashinagar PS Doboka under 91 No. Hojai LAC. The OP/DW-1 neither in his evidence in chief nor does in his cross could disclose that as to when his parents have shifted from the village Pub Mukun Ati PS Rupahihat to Uttar Ashinagar village under Doboka PS. He also could not divulge that how many brothers and sisters his father had. In Ext.4, the OP's parents names are enlisted at Sl. No. 202 and 203 respectively. However as per Ext.4, the age of the father of the OP was 85 years and his mother's age was 62 years in 1997 whereas in his cross, the OP/DW-1 has stated that his father had expired in 2005 in the age of 80 years and his mother had expired in 2007 in the age of 65 years. If the statement in cross of the OP/DW1 is admitted then his father's age in 1997 cannot be 80 years but it would be 68 years and his mother's age should be 55 years respectively. If the statement in cross of the OP/DW1 is admitted then his father's age in 1997 cannot be 80 years but it would be 68 years and his mother's age should be 55 years respectively. Such variations of the age(s) of the OP's parents have not in any manner explained in the evidence of the OP/DW-1 thus rendering the same to be unreliable and uncredible. Moreso, there is no explanation in the evidence of OP/DW-1 as to why either the OP's own name or his parents name had not been included in any voters lists subsequent to the year of 1971 and prior to 1997 i.e. for 26 years altogether. v. Exts.5 and 6 are certified copies of the voters lists of 2005 and 2010 however in view of the discrepancies as noticed herein above, in respect of Exts.1, 3 and 4, the discussions made therein are thus reiterated herein and not repeated again. Moreover, as per own admission of the OP/Dw-1 in his cross, his present age as per him is 49 years whereas his age in Ext.5 (voters list of 2005) and Ext.6 (voters list of 2010) was/were 45 years and 53 years respectively instead of 39 and 44 years. vi. Ext.7 is the school certificate of the OP/DW-1 by which he claims to have read up-to class V in Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed MV School, Nilbagan, PS. Hojai. As per the Ext.7 the date of birth of the OP is 30.10.1966 i.e., almost 49 years in 2015 as he has truly stated in his cross but his age as per the Ext.7 in 2005 and 2010 it would be 39 years and 44 years respectively instead of 45 and 53 years as reflected in the said Exts.5 and 6. vii. Ext.8 is the proved in original copy of the voters photo I/D of the OP issued on 01.10.2013 by the authority concerned on behalf of the Election Commission of India however the same by itself is not enough in support of Indian citizenship of the OP unless it's linkage is established with the documents of pre cut-off date of 25.03.1971. viii. Ext.9 is a residency certificate issued in favour of the OP herein on 10.02.2015 by the Ward Commissioner of Hojai Municipal Board. viii. Ext.9 is a residency certificate issued in favour of the OP herein on 10.02.2015 by the Ward Commissioner of Hojai Municipal Board. The Exts.8, 8 and 9 being the recent documents issued much after the cut off date of 25.03.1971 are therefore cannot be construed to the sufficient documentary evidence in support of the claim of the citizenship status of the OP herein. Moreover, the Exts.7, 8 and 9 are also not proved in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 (para 31) and another decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in 1980 Gauhati 55 (para 9 thereof). ix. Ext.10 is an affidavit being sworn in support of different spellings in the names of the OP and his father. However, even if the contentions of the said affidavit is accepted and taken into consideration pursuant to the declarations made therein yet for the major discrepancies as noticed above, it therefore of no use in support of claim of Indian citizenship of the OP. Moreover, such affidavit has no evidentiary value. 4. I have analysed the entire evidence of the OP/DW-1 and the documents accompanying therewith and also perused the materials available on record. The statements made in the evidence of OP/DW-1 pertaining to the documents of the OP exhibited therewith have therefore not been affirmed at all as required and thus are of no evidentiary relevance. Moreover, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, mere long stay in the country and enrolment of the name in the voters list did not confer any right to continue to stay in the country (Citizenship Rules, 1956). 5. To my considered opinion the mode and manner the evidence of OP/DW-1 and the cross-examination adduced, I found no credibility whatsoever to the documents relied upon and exhibited by the DW-1 can be attributed and thus in the teeth of the discussion and reasons recorded, I therefore clouded with doubts as regards to the citizenship status of the OP herein. 6. On a cumulative consideration of above, as alleged by the referral authority as regards to the OP being a foreigner of post 1971 stream it therefore appears to be a plausible one. 6. On a cumulative consideration of above, as alleged by the referral authority as regards to the OP being a foreigner of post 1971 stream it therefore appears to be a plausible one. On the strength of the set of documents produced and exhibited with the evidence of the DW-1 therefore in no means construed to be an admission of genuineness and sufficiency of these documents to buttress the claim of Indian citizenship of the OP herein. The set of documentary evidence produced by the OP/DW-1 would demonstrate are laden with gross discrepancies and inconsistence rendering the same untrustworthy and unreliable. The OP/DW-1 has therefore absolutely failed to discharge his mandatory burden to prove that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner as envisaged in Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (as amended upto-date). Order 7. In view of the above, I therefore hold and give my opinion that OP of the instant case namely Md. Safiqur Rahman, S/o/ Late Fazal Karim, a resident of village Uttar Ashinagar, PO&PS. Hojai is declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 who has illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) after 25.03.1971 without any valid document." 13. It is evident from the above that learned Member had considered the evidence adduced with due diligence and thereafter returned a finding of fact that petitioner is a foreigner having illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. This finding of fact cannot be said to be based on irrelevant materials or based on no materials at all. In other words, it cannot be said to be a perverse finding. As has been held by the Apex Court in the recent decision in Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi, (2016) 3 SCC 78 , the question of perversity is to be dealt with on the perspective of a reasonable man's inference on the facts. If the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the Court below is possible, there is no perversity. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of the evidence is not perversity. 14. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal (2013) 1 GLT 809, had examined amongst various issues about the scope of interference with the order of a Foreigners Tribunal in a writ proceeding. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of the evidence is not perversity. 14. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam Vs. Moslem Mondal (2013) 1 GLT 809, had examined amongst various issues about the scope of interference with the order of a Foreigners Tribunal in a writ proceeding. While holding that High Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Tribunal in an appropriate case, the scope of such interference is, however, limited. Certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, writ Court would not review the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal. Only exception to this proposition, as noticed above, would be in a case where the Tribunal had acted on evidence which was legally inadmissible or had refused to admit admissible evidence or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases, it would amount to an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The other errors of fact, howsoever grave those may be, cannot be corrected by a writ Court. 15. Applying the above principle, we do not find that the present case comes within the exception as mentioned above to enable the writ Court to scrutinise the order passed by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, to satisfy ourselves, we have looked into the documents exhibited by the petitioner before the Tribunal. In Ext.1 voters list of 1965, names of Fajal Karim, son of Noor and Khairun Nessa, wife of Fajal Karim, appeared. While Serial No. of Fajal Karim is 318, Serial No. of Khairun Nessa is 326. If they were husband and wife, their Serial Nos. in the voters list should have been successive and not separated by 8 numbers of other voters. This remained unexplained. Ext.2 is a computer generated NRC copy. Ext.3 is the voters list of 1971 wherein name of Md. Fajal Karim, son of Noor appears at Serial No. 594. But interestingly, name of his wife Khairun Nessa does not appear. According to the petitioner, his mother Khairun Nessa had expired in the year 2007. Non-appearance of her name in the voters list of 1971 is, therefore, quite surprising and remained unexplained. More surprising is the fact that age of Md. But interestingly, name of his wife Khairun Nessa does not appear. According to the petitioner, his mother Khairun Nessa had expired in the year 2007. Non-appearance of her name in the voters list of 1971 is, therefore, quite surprising and remained unexplained. More surprising is the fact that age of Md. Fajal Karim in the 1971 voters list was shown as 50 years whereas in the 1965 voters list, his age was shown as 55 years. Instead of increase in the age, there is decrease in the age of the petitioner's father. In the 1997 voters list (Ext.4), names of petitioner's father, mother, wife and one brother appears serially from Serial No. 202 to 206 unlike Ext.1. This time age of Fajal Karim was shown as 85 years. Without explaining absence of mother's name in the voters list of 1971, her name resurfaces in the voters list of 1997. In the 2005 voters list (Ext.5), name of Fajal Karim appears with age 90 years. According to the petitioner himself, his father Fajal Karim died in the year 2005 at the age of 80 years. While in 1997, age of the petitioner's mother Khairun Nessa was shown as 62 years, in 2005, her age was shown as 65 years. These grave discrepancies materially affected the version of the petitioner. Ext.7 which is a school transfer certificate dated 18.05.2010 relates to leaving of the petitioner from Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed MV School on 31.12.1977. Therefore, this is a certificate issued 33 years after petitioner had left the school. Ext.9, certificate of Ward Commissioner, Hojai Municipal Board, dated 04.10.2015 only says that petitioner was a tenant of Municipal Holding No. 145 of Ward No. 15, Hojai Municipal Board. It cannot be relied upon to prove citizenship of the petitioner. 16. As already noticed above, these discrepancies and contradictions in the various documents strike at the very credibility of the version of the petitioner. If learned Member on due appreciation has disbelieved such evidence as being not reliable and cogent, no fault can be found with the approach of the learned Member. 17. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed on 18.04.2016 stands vacated. 18. Office to send down the LCR forthwith. 19. Registry to inform the concerned Deputy Commissioner & Superintendent of Police (Border) accordingly. 20. 17. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed on 18.04.2016 stands vacated. 18. Office to send down the LCR forthwith. 19. Registry to inform the concerned Deputy Commissioner & Superintendent of Police (Border) accordingly. 20. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, for information to the above concerned authorities.