ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in FT (D) Case No.799/2007 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 3. FT(D) Case No.799/2007 was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon (Tribunal) following a reference made by the State with the allegation that petitioner was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory after 25.03.1971. 4. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner where after she had entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegation made against her by contending that she was a citizen of India by birth. Petitioner deposed as her own witness and exhibited a number of documents. On behalf of the State, Local Verification Officer had deposed as PW1 and proved the enquiry report submitted by him as Ext.1. On due consideration, Tribunal passed the order dated 15.03.2012 answering the reference in favour of the State by declaring the petitioner as a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 5. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 6. This Court by order dated 08.05.2012 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be deported from India subject to her appearance before the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon. 7. Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argued that Tribunal had committed a manifest error by misreading the evidence on record. Petitioner had discharged her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which could not be dislodged or rebutted by the prosecution. The finding of the Tribunal having suffered from fundamental flaws is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Particularly on the point of lack of cross-examination by the State to the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Manindra Kumar Dey Vs. Mahendra Sukla Baidya, 1999 (2) GLR 219 as well as a decision of the Supreme Court in Muddasani Venkata Narasaiah Vs. Particularly on the point of lack of cross-examination by the State to the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Manindra Kumar Dey Vs. Mahendra Sukla Baidya, 1999 (2) GLR 219 as well as a decision of the Supreme Court in Muddasani Venkata Narasaiah Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288. He has also submitted a written argument on behalf of the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and contended that Tribunal had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and thereafter returned a finding of fact. Such a finding of fact cannot be said to be based on inadmissible evidence or being vitiated by non-consideration of admissible evidence or based on no evidence. Even if High Court is not satisfied with the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal, it may not examine the correctness of the same unless it suffers from the fundamental flaws on the above grounds. Therefore, no interference is called for. 9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Also considered the written submission submitted by Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. 10. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.03.2012, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:- “(3). I have carefully perused the records and heard argument from both sides. Also I have carefully scrutinized the documents proved and exhibited. As per Ext. ‘Ka’ (the voter list, 1966), Balai Sheikh, purported grandfather of the OP, D voter, was 33 years old in 1966, but the voter list, 1970 (Ext. Kha) shows that said Balai Sheikh was 33 years old in 1970 also. His age remained the same in 1966 and 1970. As per Ext. Kha (the voter list, 1970), Keramat Ali, purported father of the OP was 25 years old, but as per Ext. Ja (the voter list, 1997), said Keramat Ali was 44 years old in 1997 which ought to have been 52 years in 1997. Again as per certificate issued by the President of Buraburi Gaon Panchayat (Ext. As per Ext. Kha (the voter list, 1970), Keramat Ali, purported father of the OP was 25 years old, but as per Ext. Ja (the voter list, 1997), said Keramat Ali was 44 years old in 1997 which ought to have been 52 years in 1997. Again as per certificate issued by the President of Buraburi Gaon Panchayat (Ext. Cha), Balai Sheikh, grandfather of the OP, was a voter in the voter list of 83 No. Bokani LAC against House No.18 Serial No.89 and part No.27 at village Garumara Doloni and as per Ext. Cha, Md. Keramat Ali, father of the OP was a vote in the voter list 1966 of 83 No. Bokani LAC against the same house No. part No. and Serial No. but no voter list for the year 1966 in the name of Keramat Ali, father of the OP, was submitted with the case. The Exts. Cha and Chha (the certificate issued by the President of Burabari Gaon Panchayat and the certificate from the Gaonburah of Burabarigaon respectively) are found contradictory. It appears that Exts. Cha and Chha were prepared just to suit the purpose of the OP. Although as per Exts. Cha and Chha (the certificates issued by the President of Burabari Gaon Panchayat on 11.10.2011 and by the Gaonburah of Buraburigaon on 07.10.2011 respectively), Keramat Ali, father of the OP is still alive, no voter list in the name of Keramat Ali was submitted after 1997. In the copy of Jamabandi (Ext. Ga), the name of Keramat Ali, s/o Balai was recorded on 30.04.1977 and as per land purchase deed (Ext. Gha) said Keramat Ali purchased land in the year 1992, i.e., after 1971, the cut off date. Although the OP claimed that she was born and brought up at village Garumara Doloni, she could not produce any birth certificate or School certificate in her name. With the discrepancies in respect of age of Balai Sheikh and Keramat Ali in the voter lists, it cannot be accepted that Balai Sheikh and Keramat Ali mentioned in the said voter lists are grandfather and father respectively of the OP herself. It is evident from Ext. Kha that Balai Sheikh, S/o Nasiruddin became father of Keramat Ali at the age of 8 years. With the discrepancies in the documents, citizenship cannot be conferred on the OP upon those voter lists. It is evident from Ext. Kha that Balai Sheikh, S/o Nasiruddin became father of Keramat Ali at the age of 8 years. With the discrepancies in the documents, citizenship cannot be conferred on the OP upon those voter lists. The Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No.190/2009 State Vs. Abdul Kuddus was pleased to hold that “Filing of some documents and picking up any name from such documents, so as to establish relationship with the said person as father or mother or even grandfather or grandmother does not establish Indian citizenship of a foreigner.” (4) In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the OP, D voter, in this reference, miserably fails to establish her citizenship by birth and descent.” 11. To appreciate the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, we have made an independent assessment of the materials on record to satisfy ourselves about the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Tribunal. 12. Written statement submitted by a noticee facing a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is the foundation of his or her defence. Since citizenship of the noticee is questioned, the noticee should come out with all material facts within his or her exclusive knowledge in terms of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and disclose them in the written statement. The averments made in the written statement are thereafter required to be proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Failure to disclose materials particulars in the written statement by itself will raise a serious question mark on the citizenship status of the noticee. 13. Having said that, let us now examine what was stated by the petitioner in her written statement filed on 28.01.2009. She stated that she was born at village Garumara Doloni under Mayong Police Station in the district of Morigaon. Md. Keramat Ali is her father. His name appeared in the voters list of 1970 in respect of the then No.83 Bokani Legislative Assembly Constituency. She had married Md. Kamaruddin of Bohapahar village under Mayong Police Station and after her marriage, she started residing with her husband in his village. In the verification filed in support of the averments made in the written statement, petitioner did not disclose her age. She had married Md. Kamaruddin of Bohapahar village under Mayong Police Station and after her marriage, she started residing with her husband in his village. In the verification filed in support of the averments made in the written statement, petitioner did not disclose her age. Thus, the written statement of the petitioner was completely bereft of material particulars, which are necessary to be produced by a noticee/proceedee whose citizenship is questioned. First and foremost, petitioner did not disclose the year of her birth, if not the date or month of her birth. Consequently, the written statement was silent as to her age. She was silent about her mother, grandparents, both paternal and maternal, brothers and sisters. The year of marriage was also not disclosed. She had also not stated anything about her children, if any. It is seen that petitioner had put her signature in both the pages of the written statement which reflects a certain level of literacy but petitioner was totally silent regarding her educational background. 14. It was on this foundation, rather lack of foundation, that the petitioner sought to build her edifice of being a citizen of India. She reiterated the same thing in her evidence-in-chief except that this time she disclosed her age as 35 years as on the date of deposition, i.e., on 17.11.2011. The age disclosed by the petitioner has some relevance. If in 2011 petitioner was 35 years of age, it would mean that she was born sometime in the year 1976. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that she did not enclose her school certificate or birth certificate which would have proved her date of birth and consequently her age. 15. Ext. ‘Ka’ is an extract of the voters list of 1966 where name of one Balai Sheikh, son of Nasiruddin, aged 33 years, appears. Balai Sheikh is claimed to be the grandfather of the petitioner. In Ext. ‘Kha’, which is an extract of the voters list of 1970, names of Keramat Ali and Balai Sheikh appear. According to the petitioner, Keramat Ali was her father and Balai Sheikh was her grandfather being the father of Keramat Ali. Interestingly, in this Exhibit, age of Balai Sheikh was shown as 33 years and that of Keramat Ali as 25 years. According to the petitioner, Keramat Ali was her father and Balai Sheikh was her grandfather being the father of Keramat Ali. Interestingly, in this Exhibit, age of Balai Sheikh was shown as 33 years and that of Keramat Ali as 25 years. The age difference between the two was only 8 years which would mean that Balai Sheikh gave birth to Keramat Ali when he was only 8 years old, which is a biological impossibility. Additionally, there was no increase in the age of Balai Sheikh from 1966 (Ext. ‘Ka’) to 1970 (Ext. ‘Kha’), in both the Exhibits his age remained static at 33 years. But more importantly, if Keramat Ali was 25 years of age in 1970, certainly it would mean that he had attained the voting age, i.e., 21 years, in 1966 but his name did not appear in the said voter list (Ext. ‘Ka’). 16. In Ext. ‘Ja’, which is an extract of the voters list of 1997, Keramat Ali was shown as 44 years and his wife Hazera Khatoon as 28 years. Was Hazera Khatoon mother of the petitioner? We do not know because petitioner had nowhere disclosed the name of her mother. This was a material omission in the written statement. Be that as it may, her year of birth would be 1969 as she was 28 years of age in 1997 (Ext. ‘Ja’). As we have noticed earlier from the deposition of the petitioner, she was born in 1976. In other words, if Hazera Khatoon is the mother of the petitioner, she gave birth to the petitioner in 1976 when she was only 7 years old, which again is a biological impossibility. 17. Ext. ‘Unga’ is stated to be a list of valuables gifted to the petitioner by her father on 18.10.1995 wherein it was stated that petitioner had married Kamaruddin on 29.09.1995. If indeed petitioner had married Kamaruddin on 29.09.1995, petitioner ought to have mentioned about this in her written statement but she did not. Interestingly, amongst the valuables gifted was 2 bighas of land but there were no description of the land in the said Exhibit. This document is neither here nor there and does not in any way help the petitioner to prove her case in any manner. 18. Interestingly, amongst the valuables gifted was 2 bighas of land but there were no description of the land in the said Exhibit. This document is neither here nor there and does not in any way help the petitioner to prove her case in any manner. 18. From an analysis of the above evidence, what emerges is a bundle of contradictions which by themselves are capable of destroying the edifice built by the petitioner. There were no valid documents or evidence to connect petitioner with Keramat Ali whom she claimed to be her father to a period prior to 25.03.1971, the cut-off date for declaration of foreigners as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. That apart, it has also come on record that at the time of hearing of the reference, Keramat Ali was very much alive. If he was alive, it is not understood as to why he did not come before the Tribunal to say that petitioner was his own daughter. For that matter, neither petitioner’s mother nor any of her relatives including her husband came forward to depose in her favour. 19. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner had discharged her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 20. On the other hand, the Local Verification Officer Shri Manjit Das deposed before the Tribunal as PW1 and stated that in the course of enquiry, petitioner could not produce any document in support of her nationality. Therefore, he submitted report before the higher authority suspecting the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. Report submitted by him to the effect that petitioner had migrated to India on or after 25.03.1971 was proved by him as Ext.1. 21. Having regard to the above and on a thorough consideration of the materials on record, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 22. Registry to send down the LCR forthwith and inform the concerned Foreigners Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner & Superintendent of Police (Border) for taking immediate follow-up steps.