JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. G. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Central Government and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Government Advocate, Assam. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seek quashing of order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 7, Dhubri at Bilasipara in FT 7th Dhubri Case No. 66/BBR/15 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. 2. Initially a reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals)Act, 1983 against the petitioner with the allegation that petitioner was an illegal migrant under the said Act. After the aforesaid Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 , the reference was re-registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 and after setting up of additional tribunals, the reference came to be registered as Foreigners Tribunal 7th Dhubri Case No. 66/BBR/15 and assigned to Foreigners Tribunal No. 7, Dhubri at Bilasipara (Tribunal) for opinion. 3. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner whereafter she had entered appearance and filed her written statement denying the allegation made and claimed to be a citizen of India by birth. Petitioner also deposed as her witness and exhibited three documents. 4. After hearing the matter and on consideration of the materials on record, Tribunal did not accept the version of the petitioner and vide the order dated 31.10.2015 declared her to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. The reference was answered accordingly. 5. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 6. This Court vide order dated 17.12.15 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be taken into custody and deported from India subject to appearance before the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhubri. 7. Submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties have been considered. 8. At the outset it would be apposite to refer to the order of the Tribunal dated 31.10.2015, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:- "The written statement, evidence adduced by the procedee and documents exhibited have been perused and examined. 7. Submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties have been considered. 8. At the outset it would be apposite to refer to the order of the Tribunal dated 31.10.2015, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:- "The written statement, evidence adduced by the procedee and documents exhibited have been perused and examined. Exhibit-1 is the certificate issued by the Chairman, Kartimari Asharikandi VCDC and countersigned by Block Development Officer, Gossaigaon Development Block wherein it has been stated that Rubina Bibi is the daughter of Abdul Ajij an inhabitant of village Balapara Pt. II, PO-Sapatgram, PS-Gossaigaon, District-Kokrajhar (BTAD), Assam. Exhibit-2 is the NRC details of 1951 wherein it has been shown that Abdul Aziz, S/o. Ilimuddin Mollah, aged about 30 years is a resident of Gotabari, PS-South Salmara, District-Dhubri which the procedee claims to be the NRC 1951 of her father Abdul Aziz and Ilimuddin Mollah is her grandfather. Exhibit-3 is an old certified copy of the voter's list of 1966 supported by a copy of the voter details of 1966 of village No. 284 Gotabari, under No. 31 Mankachar LAC wherein the name of Abdul Aziz, S/O Ilimuddin Bepari aged 35 years appears at voter Sl. No. 418. Now coming to the Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3 which are the voter details of Abdul Aziz of 1951 and voter's list of Abdul Aziz of 1966 respectively. It is seen that the Abdul Aziz, S/o. Ilimuddin Mollah recorded in the NRC 1951 is 30 years of age and in the voter's list of 1966 the age of Abdul Aziz, S/o. Ilimuddin Bepari is 35 years. If the age of Abdul Aziz is 30 years in 1951 then in 1966 his age would be 45 years. As such there is a huge age gap of 10 years in so far as age of Abdul Aziz whom the procedee claims to be her father is concerned. An age gap of 10 years cannot be considered to be a minor discrepancy in so far as identity of a person is concerned. Besides the name of the father of Abdul Aziz which is recorded as Ilimuddin Mollah in 1951 and Ilimuddin Bepari in 1966 has not been explained. An age gap of 10 years cannot be considered to be a minor discrepancy in so far as identity of a person is concerned. Besides the name of the father of Abdul Aziz which is recorded as Ilimuddin Mollah in 1951 and Ilimuddin Bepari in 1966 has not been explained. Considering the fact that as it appears from the evidence of the procedee, her father Abdul Aziz had expired about 7-8 years ago, the procedee has not produced any voter's list certified by the concerned authorities of the period after 1966 to prove that Abdul Aziz whose name appears in the voter details of 1951 and voter's list of 1966 is her father. Besides there is also no evidence on record as to how the person Abdul Aziz who is originally shown to be an inhabitant of village Gotabari under South Salmara Police Station during the period 1951 to 1966 became a permanent resident of Balapara Pt. II, PS-Gossaigaon in Kokrajhar district. Hence, from the materials available on record the procedee has failed to prove with reliable documents that the Abdul Aziz who is the father of the procedee as mentioned in her link certificate (Exhibit-1) is the same Abdul Aziz whose name appears in the voters detail NRC 1951 and voter's list 1966. In fact from the materials on record and evidence adduced, the procedee has failed to prove that her father was a citizen of India and existed in Indian soil prior to 25.03.1971. Hence, considering the entire materials on record and the discussions above, I am of the considered opinion that the procedee has failed to discharge her burden of proof that she was born through genuine Indian parents in India and as such acquired citizenship of India by birth. The documents produced are not at all reliable and trustworthy, and the procedee has failed to produce any reliable documents to prove her existence or existence of her parents and grandparents in Indian soil prior to 25.03.1971. Rather it appears that the procedee had illegally entered into India (Assam) without authority on or after 25.03.1971 and hence she is a foreigners/illegal migrant of the post 25.03.1971 stream. The procedee has failed to prove that she is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner. Heard learned Counsel for the procedee. The reference is answered in the affirmative. Rather it appears that the procedee had illegally entered into India (Assam) without authority on or after 25.03.1971 and hence she is a foreigners/illegal migrant of the post 25.03.1971 stream. The procedee has failed to prove that she is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner. Heard learned Counsel for the procedee. The reference is answered in the affirmative. It is held that the procedee is a foreigner who entered India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971 and as such she is liable to be pushed back to the specified territory i.e. Bangladesh." 9. Let us now examine the materials on record to test the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the Tribunal. 10. In her written statement petitioner stated that she was born and brought up at village Balapara Part-II under Gossaigaon Police Station in the district of Kokrajhar. Her father is Md. Abdul Aziz, son of late Ilimuddin Bepari of village Gotabari, Hajirhat. His name appeared in the voters list of 1966 in respect of No. 31 Mankachar Legislative Assembly Constituency. His name also appeared in the National Register of Citizens (NRC), 1951. Petitioner married one Amjad Ali, son of late Afsar Ali, resident of Sapatgram Ward No. 1 under PS-Sapatgram in the district of Dhubri where she is residing after her marriage with her husband. Before marriage she used to reside with her father and family members at Balapara Part II under Gossaigaon Police Station in the district of Kokrajhar. 11. From the written statement what is discernible is that petitioner did not mention about her date, month or year of birth, which is a material fact. In one place she mentioned her father's name as Md Abdul Aziz, son of late Ilimuddin Bepari whereas at another place she mentioned her father as Md. Abdul Aziz, son of Ilimuddin Mollah. Even if this discrepancy is overlooked, what is noticeable is that in 1951 and in 1966 Md. Abdul Aziz was a resident of village Gotabari, Hajirhat under Mankachar Constituency. But petitioner stated that she was born and brought up at village Balapara Part II under Gossaigaon Police Station in the district of Kokrajhar. When and why Md. Abdul Aziz shifted from Mankachar to Kokrajhar has not been explained. It is in this context that the date or month or year of the petitioner's birth becomes relevant but the written statement is silent in this regard. When and why Md. Abdul Aziz shifted from Mankachar to Kokrajhar has not been explained. It is in this context that the date or month or year of the petitioner's birth becomes relevant but the written statement is silent in this regard. Though petitioner has stated that before her marriage she used to reside with her father's family members at Balapara Part II village under Gossaigaon Police Station in the district of Kokrajhar, she did not state or mention anything about her other family members i.e. her brothers and sisters. She has not even mentioned the name of her mother. Again she stated that she got married with one Amjad Ali and post marriage she is living with him at his Sapatgram residence, but there is complete silence regarding the date, month and year of her marriage. She has also not stated as to whether she has any children out of such marriage. These are all material facts which the petitioner did not disclose in her written statement 12. The same discrepancies are again highlighted in her evidence; the only additional fact to be noted is that in her evidence in chief she described herself as aged about 35 years. This evidence by way of affidavit was sworn on 03.10.2015. This would mean that petitioner was born around the year 1980. 13. Petitioner was put certain questions by the Tribunal and in her answer to such questions she stated that she was married in the year 1995 and that her father died about 7/8 years back. 14. Petitioner exhibited three documents as under - Exhibit 1 - Certificate dated 14.9.2015 issued by the Chairman, Kartimari Asharikandi Village Council Development Committee. Exhibit 2 - Photocopy of extract of NRC, 1951. Exhibit 3 - Extract of voters list of 1966. 15. As per exhibit 1 certificate, petitioner is the daughter of late Abdul Aziz of village Balapara Part II under Police Station Gossaigaon in the district of Kokrajhar. She got married to Amjad Ali, son of late Afsar Ali of Sapatgram in the district of Dhubri. This certificate dated 14.09.2015 is signed by the Chairman, Kartimari Asharikandi Village Council Development Committee and countersigned by the Block Development Officer, Gossaigaon Development Block. She got married to Amjad Ali, son of late Afsar Ali of Sapatgram in the district of Dhubri. This certificate dated 14.09.2015 is signed by the Chairman, Kartimari Asharikandi Village Council Development Committee and countersigned by the Block Development Officer, Gossaigaon Development Block. Though the Chairman stated that the certificate holder was personally known to him, he did not come forward to testify before the Tribunal about the correctness of the contents of the certificate. It is not enough to mark a document as exhibit but it is essential to prove the truthfulness of the contents of the document by adducing evidence in accordance with law. With the author of the document not testifying the correctness of the contents, such a document cannot be relied upon. In LIC v. Rampal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 , Supreme Court has held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof; in other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. It is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. 16. Exhibit 2 is stated to be an extract of NRC, 1951 where name of Abdul Aziz, son of Ilimuddin appears showing his age as 30 years. 17. In Exhibit 3, which is an extract of the voters list of 1966 in respect of Mankachar Constituency, name of one Abdul Aziz, son of Ilimuddin Bepari appears showing his age as 35 years. Two clear discrepancies are noticeable straight away. Firstly, in exhibit 2, it is Abdul Aziz, son of Ilimuddin (though at Sl. No. 1 of this exhibit the name which appears is Ilimuddin Molah) whereas in exhibit 3 it is Abdul Aziz, son of Ilimuddin Bepari. Whether Ilimuddin or Ilimuddin Molah on the one hand and Ilimuddin Bepari on the other hand is one and the same person? There is no explanation or clarification in this regard. In exhibit 2, age of Abdul Aziz was 30 years as of 1951 whereas as per exhibit 3, age of Abdul Aziz was 35 years in 1966. Whether Ilimuddin or Ilimuddin Molah on the one hand and Ilimuddin Bepari on the other hand is one and the same person? There is no explanation or clarification in this regard. In exhibit 2, age of Abdul Aziz was 30 years as of 1951 whereas as per exhibit 3, age of Abdul Aziz was 35 years in 1966. If he was 30 years of age in 1951, he ought to have been 45 years of age in 1966 and not 35 years. 18. However, even if these two glaring discrepancies are overlooked, exhibits 2 and 3 only disclose presence of one Abdul Aziz in 1951 and in 1966. There is no document to show that petitioner is the daughter of Abdul Aziz. The only document showing such linkage i.e. exhibit 1 has already been discarded as unreliable, truthfulness of the contents having not been proved by the author of the certificate. There is no reliable or cogent evidence to establish that petitioner is the daughter of Abdul Aziz, son of Ilimuddin or Ilimuddin Molah or Ilimuddin Bepari. Neither the mother nor any of her brothers and sisters came to depose before the Tribunal. The husband was conspicuous by his absence, so also her children, if any. As already discussed above, petitioner had failed to disclose material facts before the Tribunal, such as, her date or month or year of birth, name of mother, names of brothers and sisters, date or month or year of marriage, disclosure about her children etc. Non-disclosure or failure to disclose such material facts together with failure to establish linkage with Abdul Aziz whom the petitioner claims to be her father has rendered her version totally untrustworthy and completely unreliable. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner had discharged her statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Non-disclosure of material facts in written statement and in evidence would amount to failure on the part of a procedee to discharge his or her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 19. Viewed in the above context we do not find any good ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. Rather, the view taken by the Tribunal stands further fortified by the reasonings given above. Thus, we find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed on 17.12.2015 stands vacated. 19. Viewed in the above context we do not find any good ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. Rather, the view taken by the Tribunal stands further fortified by the reasonings given above. Thus, we find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed on 17.12.2015 stands vacated. Registry to send down the LCR forthwith and inform the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, Superintendent of Police (B) and Deputy Commissioner for doing the needful.