JUDGMENT : A. K. GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Ms. D Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G Sarma, learned CGC, appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. J Payeng, learned Special Standing Counsel, FTC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, Mr. G Taye, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr. AI Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India, appearing for respondent No.7. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails the ex parte judgment and order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) No.2 at Guwahati whereby the petitioner was held to be a foreigner who entered Assam, India from Bangladesh illegally without any valid documents after 25.3.1971. 3. Following the judgment, the petitioner was arrested on 19.7.2018. 4. On the basis of submission made by Ms. D Ghosh, as recorded in the order dated 2.8.2018, that notice was not served upon the petitioner but was served upon his mother who could not contact him as he was away, we thought it appropriate to examine the records of the Tribunal at the motion stage itself. The records were received by this Court on 10.8.2018. 5. The affidavit of this writ petition was sworn by one Esmail Alom who stated that he is a cousin of the writ petitioner. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated as follows: "That the petitioner remained absent without steps because he did not receive any notice or a copy of summon issued by the Learned Foreigners Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M), Assam personally instead the copy of notice was served to the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner beg to state that at the time when the notice of summon was handed over to his mother he was not in his native village but was engaged for work as a painter at Bagmara, Garo Hills, Meghalaya, one of the remotest area without proper mobile network. Thereafter when he returned to his native village in the month of June, 2018, he was informed about the notice and immediately he came down to Guwahati, he tried his level best to engage a lawyer but because of the high fees, he was unable to afford and engage any counsel to represent him before the Learned Tribunal. Thereafter when he returned to his native village in the month of June, 2018, he was informed about the notice and immediately he came down to Guwahati, he tried his level best to engage a lawyer but because of the high fees, he was unable to afford and engage any counsel to represent him before the Learned Tribunal. Consequently, on the basis of the report of the enquiring officer the Learned Tribunal opined that the petitioner is a foreigner post 1971 stream and have entered into India after 25.03.1971. Thus, the case was decided and proceeds ex-parte order and the petitioners were declared as foreigners and that he should be immediately deported from India to Bangladesh." 6. However, from the records it is seen that notice was duly served upon the petitioner personally on 18.4.2018. A perusal of the records of the Tribunal further goes to show that Esmail Alom himself had received a notice on behalf of the petitioner on 30.11.2017. However, as the service report was not received by the Tribunal before the next date fixed, i.e. 1.12.2017, the Tribunal issued reminder fixing 11.1.2018. On 11.1.2018, the Tribunal directed issuance of fresh notice fixing 2.3.2018. This notice was duly served upon the mother of the petitioner on 15.2.2018. But, as the service report was not before the Tribunal, once again notice was directed to be issued fixing 23.4.2018. As noticed earlier, the petitioner had received this notice on 18.4.2018. Even after receipt of notice by the petitioner himself, he did not appear on 23.4.2018 or in subsequent dates namely, 25.5.2018, 20.6.2018 and therefore, the learned Tribunal rendered the ex parte judgment. 7. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 provides that if in any case not falling under Section 8, any question arises with reference to the Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description, the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall lie upon such person. 8. An additional affidavit was filed on 16.8.2018 which was sworn by Esmail Alom. 8. An additional affidavit was filed on 16.8.2018 which was sworn by Esmail Alom. Neither in the writ petition nor in the additional affidavit, Esmail Alom has stated that he had also received a notice earlier. It is sought to be explained in the additional affidavit by him that the statements made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition were partially wrong as he was not aware of receipt of notice by the petitioner himself. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it was also stated by him that on being told in the month of June, 2018 about receipt of notice by his mother, the petitioner had come down to Guwahati and sought to engage a lawyer, thereby giving an impression that the petitioner had not come to his residence till June, 2018, which is not true, as revealed from the records, inasmuch as, the petitioner was personally served with the notice in the month of April, 2018. It is manifest that false statements have been made before this Court. 9. In Sarbananda Sonowal -Vs- Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 , at Paragraph 73, the Supreme Court had observed that the procedure under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. In Paragraph 63, the Supreme Court had observed that there can be no manner of doubt that the State of Assam is facing external aggression and internal disturbance on account of large-scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals and that it, therefore, becomes the duty of the Union of India to take all measures for protection of the State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution. In Paragraph 70, it was observed that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of the North-Eastern region and that their presence has changed the demographic character of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts. 10. In Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali [WP(C) 4971/2018], decided on 1.8.2018, this Court had observed as follows: "15. 10. In Azmat Ali @ Amzad Ali [WP(C) 4971/2018], decided on 1.8.2018, this Court had observed as follows: "15. It is more than three decades that the issue of influx of foreign nationals has been in public domain in the State of Assam and has engaged the attention of the people. Interest of the State is of paramount importance in that unabated influx has the potential to affect the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Citizenship of a person, no doubt, is a very valuable right and should be zealously guarded. There is no gainsaying the fact that a person who is alleged to be a foreigner must be given due and reasonable opportunity to establish that he is a citizen of India. However, if a person does not take steps for safeguarding his interest, he does so at his own risk and peril as grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. Right to a fair hearing or principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to lead to a farcical situation and to be an engine for defeating the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners." 11. The petitioner was given due opportunity and the petitioner had not availed such opportunity. Grant of opportunity cannot be an endless exercise, as in that event, it will frustrate the very idea of detection and deportation of foreigners. 12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Registry will send back the records of the Tribunal.