JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. DK Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.08.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5553/2014 filed by the appellants as the writ petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 12.02.2014, passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal, (2nd), Morigaon in Case No. FT (C) 129/2009 declaring the appellants as illegal migrants who had entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. 2. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that initially the reference was made against the appellants under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, suspecting the appellants to be illegal migrants as defined under the said Act. The reference was registered as IMDT Case No. 762/2001 before the Tribunal constituted under the said Act. 3. After the aforesaid Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 , the reference was re-registered under the Foreigners' Act, 1946 as Case No. FT(C) 129/2009 and was assigned to the Foreigners' Tribunal (2nd), Morigaon (Tribunal) for opinion. 4. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the appellants whereafter, appellants entered appearance along with their engaged lawyer and filed written statement denying the allegation made by claiming to be citizens of India by birth. They also adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. 5. After hearing the matter and on due consideration, Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the State vide order dated 12.02.2014 in the above manner. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.2.2014, appellants filed the related writ petition before this Court, which was registered as WP(C) No. 5553/2014. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2015 dismissed the writ petition. 7. Hence, this appeal. 8. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 9. Tribunal on due appreciation of evidence had answered the reference in favour of the State. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is extracted hereunder:- "10. The D.W. 4, Md. Habibur Rahman village Headman of Sagunbahl. He exhibited Ext. 'Jha' certificate in the name of Musstt. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 9. Tribunal on due appreciation of evidence had answered the reference in favour of the State. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is extracted hereunder:- "10. The D.W. 4, Md. Habibur Rahman village Headman of Sagunbahl. He exhibited Ext. 'Jha' certificate in the name of Musstt. Sahera Khatun by village Headman but nowhere mentioned how many years resided in the said address. Ext. "Nia' school transfer certificate of Sahera Khatun, dated 07.04.2000. Ext. 'Ta' copy of voter list of 1965 of Nabi Hussain, A. Khaleque and Naibali. In cross-examination the D.W. 4 admitted that Ext. 'Jha' certificate was issued on 11.05.2013 but no issue number from Govt. register book. It is also stated that he mentioned in the certificate about her marriage but cannot say date of her marriage. Ext. 'Nia' school transfer certificate was not counter signed by the competent authority. The Ext. 'Nia' certificate was obtained on 07.04.2000 after cut off date. Though the D.W. 4 tried by exhibiting Ext. 'Ta' voter list of 1965 that A. Khaleque is father of Sahera Khatun (O.P. No. 2) but cannot substantiate nor duly prove the same. 11. On perusal of record it appear that though O.P's side exhibited some procured documents not duly prove the same Moreover no land document filed with the record. Therefore presumption may be drawn that O.Ps. are resided in Govt. land. 12. The general principle is that when a person claims to be a citizen of a particular country burden lies on him/her that he or she is citizen of that country. Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946 (as amended up-to-date) burden of proof lies upon the O.P. that he is a citizen of India. In the instant case O.Ps. failed to discharge its burden. Citizenship cannot be established by exhibiting extract copy of voter list and other documents without proving the originals as held by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court reported in case law (2011) (3) GLT 684 (may be referred to)." 10. As would be evident from the above, Tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record and thereafter returned a finding of fact that the appellants were illegal migrants who had entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. Ordinarily, a writ court would not interfere with such a finding of fact. As would be evident from the above, Tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record and thereafter returned a finding of fact that the appellants were illegal migrants who had entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. Ordinarily, a writ court would not interfere with such a finding of fact. Notwithstanding the same, learned Single Judge examined the record, including the record requisitioned from the Tribunal, and re-appreciated the evidence on record whereafter, it was held as under:- "As discussed in the impugned judgment and order, the petitioners examined 4(four) witnesses. Although the petitioner No. 1 as DW-1 deposed that he had cast vote in 1997 and stated that he has landed property but failed to show any document to that affect. He also could not say anything about his father's death. DW-2 (Village Headman) exhibited documents, namely. Exhibits-Ka and Kha, certificates both dated 20th March, 2011, which are after institution of the proceeding. The said 2(two) certificates did not indicate anything about the Indian citizenship of the petitioners. Exhibit-Gha and Exhibit-Unga are the copies of the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 containing the name of one Altab Ali but he is not the father of the petitioner No. 1, as the petitioner No. 1 himself has claimed the name of his father as Hasmat Ali. Exhibit-Cha and Chha are copies of voter lists of 1997 and 2008, which have no relevance, the cutoff date being 25th March, 1971 and in absence of any document proved by the petitioners to establish the linkage. DW-3 in her evidence stated that she was a voter in 2008 and that she has studied in school upto Class-IV. However, in her cross-examination she failed to name the school in which she has allegedly studied. Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the Annexures-4 and 5, photocopies of voter lists of 1966 and 1970 (extract only), has submitted that the name of Hasmat Ali Morol appearing in the said voter lists describing him as the son of Irjjat Ali is the father of petitioner No. 1. However, contrary to the said stand, in the written statement filed before the Tribunal (Annexure-11), the definite stand of the petitioner No. 1 was that the name of his father did not appear in the voter list of 1966. In the said written statement, there was also no mention of 1970 voter list. However, contrary to the said stand, in the written statement filed before the Tribunal (Annexure-11), the definite stand of the petitioner No. 1 was that the name of his father did not appear in the voter list of 1966. In the said written statement, there was also no mention of 1970 voter list. Above apart and significantly in Exhibit-Ga certificate of Tulasibari Gaon Panchayat dated 12th November, 1996, the father of Hasmat Ali, i.e. grandfather of petitioner No. 1, is shown as Ahommad Ali and not Irjjat Ali appearing in 1966 and 1970 voter lists. Above being the position, there is absolute failure on the part of the petitioners to prove that they are Indian citizens by birth. They having failed to discharge the burden of proof as envisaged in the Foreigners Act, 1946, about which great emphasize has been led by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920 . For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 12th February, 2014 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (2nd), Morigaon, in Case No. F.T. (C) 129/09 [IM(D)T Case No. 762/2001, dated 9th January, 2002] and hence, the writ petition is dismissed." 11. As stated above, learned Single Judge had re-appreciated the evidence on record whereafter order passed by the Tribunal was affirmed. Such decision of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be vitiated by any element of perversity. In writ appeal, we cannot substitute our view for the view rendered by the Single Bench unless, we come to the conclusion that the decision of the Single Bench is vitiated by perversity. 12. Notwithstanding the same, to re-assure ourselves, we have looked into the materials on record and we are more than convinced about the correctness of the finding recorded by the Tribunal as affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 13. In the written statement, stand taken was that appellant Nos. 1 & 2 were residents of village-Botabari under Lahorighat Police Station in the district of Morigaon; because of frequent flood, about 22 years back, they shifted to their present place of residence i.e., Milanpur (Ward No. 3), Morigaon where they are permanently residing having their own landed property. Father of appellant No. 1 was Hasmot Ali, whose name appeared in the voters' list of 1961. Father of appellant No. 1 was Hasmot Ali, whose name appeared in the voters' list of 1961. Uncle's name i.e., Altab Ali appeared in the voters' lists of 1966 and 1970. Father of appellant No. 2 was Abdul Khaleque, whose name appeared in the voters' list of 1966 in respect of Lahorighat Constituency. However, in his evidence, appellant No. 1 stated that his grand-father's name was Altab Ali, which contradicted his statement made in the written statement that Altab Ali was his uncle. Grand-father died in his childhood. Father died in 1965. Appellant No. 1 neither mentioned particulars of their land and house, though he stated in the written statement that appellants are permanently residing at Milanpur (Ward No. 3), Morigaon on their own landed property. In so far, appellant No. 2 was concerned, she failed to establish her linkage with Abdul Khaleque whom she claimed to her father by any admissible evidence. That apart, in the memo of appeal, appellants have annexed two birth certificates of Aktara Begum (appellant No. 4) and Jyotsnara Begum (appellant No. 5) as Annexures-3 & 3(A), respectively. As it is, these two documents were not tendered in evidence before the Tribunal and, therefore, such documents have no evidentiary value. 14. Notwithstanding the same, we have looked into these two documents. As per these two birth certificates, Aktara Begum was born on 31.12.1997 and Jyotsnara Begum was born on 10.01.2000. Both the certificates were issued on 09.07.2015. 15. First of all, there are grave doubts about the genuineness and authenticity of such certificates, as it is seen that the certificates were issued on 09.07.2015 after passing of the order by the Tribunal on 12.02.2014. That apart, on the left hand top corner of the certificates, there is a seal of the office of the Joint Director of Health Services, Morigaon, while at the right hand side bottom, the seal of the issuing authority was shown as Registrar of Birth & Death, Morigaon. But most importantly, these two certificates were issued 18 years after the birth of the two children. 16. Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is an Act to provide for regulation of registration of births and deaths and for matters connected therewith. As per section 8, it is the duty of all persons to furnish information to the Registrar about births and deaths in the family. 16. Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is an Act to provide for regulation of registration of births and deaths and for matters connected therewith. As per section 8, it is the duty of all persons to furnish information to the Registrar about births and deaths in the family. As per section 13(1), any birth of which information is given to the Registrar after expiry of the period specified, but within 30 days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) thereof, provides that any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after 30 days but within 1 year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority on payment of the prescribed fee and production of an affidavit. Under sub-section (3), any birth or death which has not been registered within 1 year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the 1st Class after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. 17. This position has been elaborately laid down in the Assam Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, which provides that information regarding birth and death shall have to be furnished within 21 days of the occurrence, except in the case of plantations. Rule 9 deals with delayed registration which is in terms of section 13 of the Act. 18. On the face of such statutory provision and failure of the appellants to demonstrate compliance to such statutory requirement, these two documents i.e., Annexures 3 and 3(A) not only have no evidentiary significance, but considering the circumstances under which those have been brought on record, raises grave doubts about the authenticity of such certificates, more so, when those were not tendered in evidence. 19. It is quite evident that appellants have not approached the Court with clean hands. They have taken recourse to and relied upon documents which cannot be said to be authenticated. 20. Consequently, we do not find any ground to entertain the writ appeal. Writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Registry to inform the concerned Foreigners' Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police (Border) for necessary follow-up steps. Appeal Dismissed