JUDGMENT : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Sarmah, learned counsel for respondent no.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned counsel for respondent no.2; Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for respondent nos.3, 5 and 6 and Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. The petitioner has been declared as a foreigner, illegally entering into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971, vide order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.5th, Morigaon in F.T. (D) 27/2015. 3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record we, at the outset, are not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2016 for the reasons stated hereunder. 4. Reference against the petitioner was initially made under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal)Act, 1983 holding him to be an illegal migrant of post 1971 stream. Consequent upon the striking down of the aforesaid Act, 1983 by the Supreme Court, the case was transferred and eventually taken up and decided by the Foreigners’ Tribunal No.5th, Morigaon. Fresh notice was issued, pursuant to which, the petitioner appeared and filed written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner abstained from appearing and/or participating in the proceedings, in that, he failed to adduce evidence and/or to prove documents despite sufficient opportunities granted. In this situation, the petitioner having failed to discharge his burden as required under Section 9 of the ForeignersAct,1946and/or for failing to adduce evidence to prove his claim, the Tribunal declared the petitioner to be a foreigner under Section 2(a) of the ForeignersAct,1946as illegally entering into India (Assam) after the cut off date i.e. 25.03.1971. It was further ordered that if the name of the petitioner is enrolled in any voter list, the same be deleted forthwith. 5. On the facts above, we deem it expedient to take note that the influx of foreign nationals over the years have received serious concern and attention of the people, as unabated influx have posed threat to the integrity and sovereignty of the country itself. Having said so, however, the procedure to identify and declare an individual to be a foreign national cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise as the citizenship of a person is a valuable right, zealously guarded. Fair and reasonable opportunity must be afforded to the proceedee to establish that he is a citizen of India. Having said so, however, the procedure to identify and declare an individual to be a foreign national cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise as the citizenship of a person is a valuable right, zealously guarded. Fair and reasonable opportunity must be afforded to the proceedee to establish that he is a citizen of India. To flag a caveat, a proceedee who is not diligent and/or is unmindful to take steps to safeguard his interest, he does so at his own risk and peril. Grant of fair and reasonable opportunity cannot be an endless exercise. Granting of time and opportunity endlessly cannot be permitted as it would be used as a tool to defeat the very object of identification and deportation of foreigners plaguing this country, particularly the State of Assam. In the instant case, despite opportunities granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence and to establish citizenship of India, he utterly failed to do so. 6. In a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners(Tribunals) Order, 1964 the primary issue for determination is whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not. The relevant fact being especially within the knowledge of the proceedee, as such, the burden of proving citizenship absolutely rests upon the proceedee, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This is mandated under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act, 1946. Accordingly, burden is cast upon the proceedee to plead and prove evidence to establish that he is not a foreigner. The said position would not change in an ex-parte proceeding before the Tribunal as the burden never shifts but continues to be upon the proceedee. In a situation where no evidence is adduced or the burden is not discharged, the only option left to the Tribunal would be to declare the proceedee to be a foreigner, based on the grounds of reference upon which appropriate proceeding was initiated and notice was issued and served upon the proceedee. In the instant case, the petitioner had duly received the notice and had also submitted written statement through engaged counsel. Because of non-participation of the petitioner in the subsequent stages of the proceeding, the Tribunal had no alternative but to proceed against the petitioner and declare him as a foreigner. 7. In the present petition, documents have been enclosed to establish that the petitioner is a citizen of India. Because of non-participation of the petitioner in the subsequent stages of the proceeding, the Tribunal had no alternative but to proceed against the petitioner and declare him as a foreigner. 7. In the present petition, documents have been enclosed to establish that the petitioner is a citizen of India. In this context, we observe that the scope of interference to an order of the Tribunal in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. A writ in the nature of certiorari can only issue for correcting errors of jurisdiction or when decision is made by the Tribunal without giving opportunity of hearing or when judgment is rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice or where there appears to be an error apparent on the face of the record. None of the above grounds exists in the present writ petition. The writ court would definitely not interfere with the order of the Tribunal when, admittedly, sufficient opportunities had been given to the proceedee to discharge the burden of proving that he is not a foreigner, as in the instant case. The certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. The documents which the petitioner has enclosed in the present writ petition also cannot be looked into, those not having been proved before the Tribunal at the first instance despite opportunities afforded. In this connection, we may refer to one of the documents at Annexure 4 of the writ petition, which is a Medical Certificate dated 31.05.2018, issued by one Dr. Ajit Kumar Phukan showing that the petitioner was undergoing treatment and medical advice with effect from 03.06.2016 to 31.05.2018. Apparently, this Certificate is an attempt to justify absence from the Tribunal after filing of the writ statement. Although the doctor issuing the Medical Certificate is the Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer, Morigaon Civil Hospital, the same has been issued from his private chamber. We take no credence to the said Certificate as it has no evidentiary value in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. For all the reasons aforestated, we find no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed and the order of the Tribunal affirmed. 9. Registry to inform the concerned Foreigners’ Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police (Border), for taking immediate follow-up steps.