JUDGMENT : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. A. Das, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 19.04.2016 passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri, in BNGN/FT/Case No.816/2010, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory after 25.03.1971. 3. It appears that initially reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Bongaigaon under the Illegal Migrants (Determination of Tribunals) Act, 1983, with the allegation that petitioner was an illegal migrant as defined under the said Act. The reference was registered as IM(D)T Reference Case No. 1053/2002 before the Tribunal constituted 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, as BNGN/FT/Case No. 816/2010 and after creation of additional Tribunals, was assigned to the Foreigners' Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri (Tribunal), for opinion. 4. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner, whereafter he entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed a written statement along with copies of certain documents, denying the allegation made that he was a foreigner by claiming himself to be a citizen of India by birth. Petitioner also gave evidence as his own witness and exhibited as many as 6 (six) documents. After hearing the matter, Tribunal passed the order dated 19.04.2016, answering the reference in favour of the State in the above manner. 5. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 6. When the writ petition was moved on 23.06.2016, it was submitted that following order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner was taken into custody. In such circumstances, this Court while issuing notice and requisitioning the case record passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be deported from India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in discharge of his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, petitioner had adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in discharge of his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, petitioner had adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective and, therefore, arrived at an erroneous finding causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court should intervene in the matter in an appropriate manner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support the order of the Tribunal and submit that finding recorded by the Tribunal was a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. Order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error or infirmity. No case for interference is made out. Hence, writ petition should be dismissed. 9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Also perused the materials on record. 10. At the outset, it would be appropriate to examine the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 19.04.2016, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder :- "Decision & reasons thereof:- In this case no prosecution witness has been examined. But to prove himself not to be a foreigner, O.P has filed his evidence on affidavit. OP stated that he is an Indian citizen by birth as he has claimed that his father's and brother's names appeared in the NRC of 1951 (Exhibit 1). He has also stated that his elder brother's name has been recorded in the Electoral Roll of 1966 and 1970 (Exhibit 2 & Exhibit 3). OP has further stated that his name has been included for the first time in the Electoral Roll of 1996 (Exhibit 4) though he had tried to record his name in the earlier electoral roll. OP has again stated that his name also appeared in the electoral roll of 2008 (Exhibit 5). OP further stated that after his birth his father had shifted to his aforesaid address and started to reside there for their livelihood and in this connection he has exhibited one family ration card (Exhibit 6). OP has claimed that his age was wrongly shown to be 70 years in the written statement which was a typing mistake and that should have been 55 years. OP has claimed that his age was wrongly shown to be 70 years in the written statement which was a typing mistake and that should have been 55 years. To come to a just conclusion, let me appreciate the evidence on record along with the aforementioned six exhibits (Exhibit- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6) to determine the nationality of O.P. Md. Saru Sheikh. From the record it appears that O.P has projected Fatu Sheikh as his father and Baru Sheikh as his brother whose names were appeared in Exhibit 1 at Village West Sastarghat under Dhubri Sub-Division. In the said NRC, besides Baru Sheikh and Fatu Sheikh, 7 other peoples' names were also appeared. Out of them, Tepu, Paban Uddin Sheikh, Tepjan, Janaki Nessa and Laru Sheikh were shown and children of Fatu Sheikh. In Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, Baru Sheikh's name was appeared along with one Jhakani Bewa whose name does not appear in the NRC. In exhibit 4 and 5, OP's name appeared with Bashia Bibi at village Sedamari Pallitol under Jogighiopa PS in the district of Bongaigaon in Exhibit 6, OP's name appeared along with other people. Though OP has stated in his evidence in chief that his father has shifted to his new address i.e. village Sedamari Pallirtol under Jogighopa PS after his birth OP, he has not been able to prove this fact by any documentary evidence. OP has not submitted the voter list of other family members residing in the said village. OP has also failed to establish any linkage with Baru Sheikh whom he projected as his brother. Thus, the documents submitted by the OP can not be treated as conclusive evidence in the matter of establishing any linkage with Fatu Sheikh and Baru Sheikh. For the reasons and discussions above, the evidence and documents submitted by OP in support of his version are found to be not sufficient and trustworthy to prove that he is an Indian by birth. Considering the entire materials on record and discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of the Opposite Party is not trustworthy at all and Opposite Party has miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove that he was born through genuine Indian parents as such acquired citizenship by birth, rather it appears that Opposite Party namely, Md. Saru Sheikh, S/o Late Fatu SK, Village-Pallitol, P.S. - Jogighopa, District-Bongaigaon, Assam has entered into India from Bangladesh without authenticity subsequent to 25.03.1971 and hence Opposite Party is termed to be foreigner/illegal migrant of post 25.03.1971. This case is decided accordingly." 11. On a close scrutiny of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that Tribunal had duly considered the evidence on record and, thereafter, recorded the aforesaid finding of fact. Ordinarily, a writ Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not interfere with such a finding of fact. However, notwithstanding the same, to satisfy ourselves about the correctness of the finding returned by the Tribunal, we have looked into the materials on record. 12. As already discussed above, the initial reference was made by the State against the petitioner under the 1983 Act, which provided for a multi-layered scrutiny before making of reference. Superintendent of Police (B) Bongaigaon, by his order dated 21.09.2002, instructed Sub-Inspector Shri Kusum Kumar Roy to make an enquiry regarding the citizenship status of the petitioner. Thereafter, the said Sub-Inspector of Police made enquiry and in his enquiry report dated 12.10.2002, he reported that petitioner originally belonged to village Golaibhanga under Dhujnura Police Station in the district of Mymensingh, Bangladesh and had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971, on account of poverty. This report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer after making enquiry in the course of which he recorded the statement of the petitioner and other witnesses. During the course of enquiry, petitioner failed to produce any documents to prima facie show that he was a citizen of India. It was, thereafter, that the Superintendent of Police (B) made the reference on 03.12.2002. 13. Having noticed the above background, we may now examine the stand taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the written statement. It goes without saying that in a proceeding before the Foreigners' Tribunal, written statement is the basic statement of defence of a proceedee. Having regard to the mandate of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, it is incumbent upon a proceedee to disclose all such facts which are specially within his or her knowledge having a material bearing on his claim to be a citizen of India at the first instance itself i.e., in the written statement. Such facts are thereafter required to be proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Failure to disclose such material facts may lead to drawing of adverse inference against the proceedee. In the written statement so filed, petitioner did not disclose his date or year of birth. Consequently, there was no disclosure regarding his age. He also did not disclose the place where he was born. All that he disclosed was that his father's name was late Fatu Sheikh; petitioner was recorded as a voter in the voters' lists of 1985, 1996 and 2008, in respect of Abhayapuri South Constituency by showing him as a resident of village Chandamari Pallirtol under Joghighopa Police Station, earlier in the undivided district of Goalpara and, thereafter in the district of Bongaigaon. Additionally he stated that his elder brother Baru Sheikh was a voter in the 1966 voters' list, where his address was shown as village-Shantarghat Part-II under Dhubri Police Station. He did not disclose the name and particulars of his mother, other brothers and sisters. On the other hand, whatever he disclosed were self contradictory. If his elder brother was recorded as a voter in the voters' list of 1966 it is not understood as to how petitioner came to be recorded as a voter in the year 1985 after 19 long years. His brother was a resident of village-Shantarghat Part-II under Dhubri Police Station whereas petitioner was a resident of village-Chandamari Pallirtol under Jogighopa Police Station! This material discrepancy was not explained. On the other hand, name of the father is not to be found in any of the voter's list. Petitioner also did not disclose as to whether his father was alive or had expired. 14. Such a written statement is wholly inadequate to make out a case of citizenship. It is also trite that a party is bound by his own pleadings in the written statement and he cannot traverse beyond the pleadings. Be that as it may, in his evidence-in-chief recorded on 30.01.2016, petitioner disclosed his age for the first time as 56 years. If the petitioner was 56 years of age in 2016, it would mean that he was born sometime in the year 1960. If that be so, his name ought to have appeared as a voter in the year 1981. 15. If the petitioner was 56 years of age in 2016, it would mean that he was born sometime in the year 1960. If that be so, his name ought to have appeared as a voter in the year 1981. 15. Exhibit-1 is an extract of National Register of Citizens (NRC) entry for 1951 issued by the Officer-In-charge, Dhubri Police Station on 20.06.1987. Here, name of Fatu Sheik appears at Serial No. 1 and Baru Sheikh appears at Serial No. 7. Baru Sheikh was shown as 9 years of age whereas, Fatu Sheikh was shown as 60 years of age. Nobody was shown as wife of Fatu Sheikh. That apart, if Fatu Sheikh was 60 years of age in 1951, his name ought to have appeared in all the voters' list of independent India. But no such voters' list was exhibited. 16. Exhibit-2 is an extract of the voters' list of 1966. Here, names of 2 (two) persons Jhakani Bewa and Baru Sheikh appear, both shown related to Fatu Sheikh. But Jhakani Bewa's name did not appear in Exhibit 1 though in Exhibit-2, she was shown as 45 years of age. This remained unexplained. Fatu Sheikh was shown as father of Baru Sheikh in Exhibit-2. But petitioner did not explain as to what had happened to him (Fatu Sheikh) during this period or why his name did not appear in Exhibit-2. Petitioner also did not explain the relationship between Jhakani Bewa and Baru Sheikh; whether Jhakani Bewa was the mother of Baru Sheikh ? The position as regards Exhibit-2 was repeated in Exhibit 3, which is an extract of the voters' list of 1970. However, there is a significant discrepancy here. Jhakani Bewa was 49 years and Baru Sheikh 61 years ? If this is accepted, then Jhakani Bewa cannot be the mother of Baru Sheikh. Then who is she ? Petitioner's name appears for the first time in Exhibit-4 which is extract of the voters' list of 1996 in respect of Abhayapuri South Constituency. Though the petitioner is shown to be the son of Fatu Sheikh, it has not been explained as to how petitioner became a voter of Abhayapuri South Constituency when his brother Baru Sheikh was a voter of Dhubri Constituency. That apart, as already discussed above, residences of Baru Sheikh and petitioner were different; located in different villages under different police stations !! That apart, as already discussed above, residences of Baru Sheikh and petitioner were different; located in different villages under different police stations !! Along with the petitioner, name of one Basia Bibi described as his wife also appeared in that exhibit, which position was repeated in Exhibit-5, which is an extract of the voters' list of 2009. Here age of the petitioner was shown as 53 years. If petitioner was 53 years of age in 2008, it would mean that he was born sometime in 1955 which contradicts his declaration of age in his evidence-in-chief. Additionally, if petitioner was born in 1955, he became eligible to caste vote in 1976, but his name appears for the first time in Exhibit-4, i.e., in 1996! This has not been explained by the petitioner. Finally, Exhibit-6 is a copy of the ration card issued by the Government of Assam in the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department. This card is in the name of Basiya Bibi, wife of Saru Sheikh, i.e., the petitioner. There is no date of issuance of this ration card which makes it highly suspect; and certainly ration card cannot be treated as a proof of one's citizenship. Therefore, the narrative which was projected by the petitioner that he is the son of Late Fatu Sheikh, a citizen of India and born in India cannot be believed. Petitioner's version suffered from multiple contradictions materially affecting her claim, besides rendering the same totally unreliable. 17. In such circumstances, view taken by the Tribunal that the evidence tendered by the petitioner was not trustworthy, is a reasonable and a plausible one. Consequently, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. No case for interference is made out. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 18. Registry to send down the LCR forthwith and inform the concerned Foreigners' Tribunal, Superintendent of Police (Border) and Deputy Commissioner for taking necessary follow-up steps.