ORDER : NANI TAGIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. AM Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Sarmah, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 5 & 6; Ms. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms. A Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1st, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 320/2016 whereby the petitioner/opposite party has been opined to be a foreigner of Post 1971 stream. 3. A reference case under the IM (D)T Act against the writ petitioner/opposite party was initiated by the Supdt. of Police (B), Barpeta under Reference Case No. 6601(A) /1998 alleging that the writ petitioner/opposite party, namely, Diluwara Khatun, W/o Saber of village- Rangapani, PS- Barpeta in the district of Barpeta to be a foreigner. As per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.07.2005 in WP(C) No.131/2000, the case stood transferred to Foreigners’ Tribunal No.1st, Barpeta. 4. Upon receipt of Notice, the opposite party filed her written statement and evidence on affidavit stating inter-alia that she is a bonafide citizen of India, born and brought up at village- Sidli, PS- Baghbar, Dist.- Barpeta, Assam. The writ petitioner/proceedee stated that her father’s name is Iyashin Khan, whose name appeared in the Voter Lists of 1966 and 1970 in Sl.No.88 & 109 respectively as House No.27, Part No.78, 79 of village Dakhin Sidli, 51 No. Jania LAC. Voter List of 1966 and 1970 have been exhibited as Exhibits- A & E respectively. 5. In order to establish linkage with her father, the petitioner has exhibited Exhibits- B, C & D. Exhibit-B is the certificate dated 25.06.2015 issued by the Secretary, 78 No. Sitoli Gaon Panchayat. Exhibit- C is the certificate dated 28.09.2016 issued by the Village Headmas of Sitoli, Dakshin Sitoli and Exhibit -D is the certificate dated 23.09.2017 issued by Gaonburah of Charge No.15, 17 & 18 of village- Lurfuria, Gagalmara, Gobindapur, Kayemari, Gorala, 4 No.Bhera, Siltoli, Dakshin Sitoli, Mouza- Jania, PO- Sitoli/Kadong, PS & Dist. Barpeta. 6. Exhibit- C is the certificate dated 28.09.2016 issued by the Village Headmas of Sitoli, Dakshin Sitoli and Exhibit -D is the certificate dated 23.09.2017 issued by Gaonburah of Charge No.15, 17 & 18 of village- Lurfuria, Gagalmara, Gobindapur, Kayemari, Gorala, 4 No.Bhera, Siltoli, Dakshin Sitoli, Mouza- Jania, PO- Sitoli/Kadong, PS & Dist. Barpeta. 6. Although in the certificates issued by the Secretary and Gaonburah, which has been marked as Exhibit-B & C, the proceedee has been shown to be daughter of Eashin Khan, nevertheless none of the issuing authority and/or authors of the said certificates were examined before the Tribunal in order to prove the authenticity of the document itself as well as the authenticity of the contents of the said certificates. The manner in which the such certificates/documents are to be proved have been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupajan Begum Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579 , wherein, in paragraph-16, it has been held as follows: “16. The certificate issued by the G.P. Secretary, by no means, is proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a citizen) is established. The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is the authenticity of the contents thereof. The latter process of verification is bound to be an exhaustive process in the course of which the source of information of the facts and all other details recorded in the certificate will be ascertained after giving an opportunity to the holder of the certificate.” 7. In the absence of such exercise being undertaken by the writ petitioner/proceedee before the Tribunal below, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupajan Begum (supra), Exhibit- B & C must be held to be inadmissible in law and no reliance can be placed on those exhibits by this Court in favour of the writ petitioner. 8. Further, on perusal of Exhibit-D, we find that there is a State Emblem embossed on the top of it. With regard to improper use of State Emblem in certificate, this Court in the order dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.7115/2016 ( Sultana Begum Vs. 8. Further, on perusal of Exhibit-D, we find that there is a State Emblem embossed on the top of it. With regard to improper use of State Emblem in certificate, this Court in the order dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.7115/2016 ( Sultana Begum Vs. Union of India and others) has held as follows: “… ..We would observe that the Central Government has framed statutory rules called State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007 (in short the Rules), in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 (in short the Act). Section 3 of the Act specifically prohibits improper use of the state emblem. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall use the emblem or any colourable imitation thereof in any manner which tends to create an impression that it relates to the Government or that it is an official document of the Central Government or the State Government, without the previous permission or authorization. This section starts with a non-obstante clause, meaning thereby that it has overriding effect over all the laws for the time being in force. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that use of the official emblem is restricted to the authorities specified in Schedule-I.Rule 10 makes the restriction more specific. It says that no person, including former Ministers, former Members of Parliament, former Members of Legislative Assemblies, former Judges and retired Government officials (other than those authorized under the Rules) shall use the emblem in any manner. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 clearly provides that no Commission or Committee, Public Sector Undertaking, Bank, Municipal Council, Panchayati Raj Institution, Non- Government Organization, University (other than those authorized under the Rules) shall use the emblem in any manner. Schedule-I to the Rules contains a list of constitutional and statutory authorities, Ministries and Departments of the Central Government, State Governments or Union Territory Administrations and other Government functionaries which may use the emblem. ….” 10. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid writ petition, the certificate dated 23.09.2007 issued by the Gaonburah (Exhibit-D) with State Emblem embossed on the top of it, cannot be considered as a valid and acceptable document. ….” 10. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid writ petition, the certificate dated 23.09.2007 issued by the Gaonburah (Exhibit-D) with State Emblem embossed on the top of it, cannot be considered as a valid and acceptable document. The State Emblem being improperly and unauthorisedly used in the instant case by the Gaonburah, and the same being clear violation of the aforesaid Act and the Rules, as explained in Sultana Begum (supra), the Gaonburah Certificate (Exhibit-D) is inadmissible in evidence. Any document or certificate issued by an authority using the State Emblem, who are otherwise not authorized to use the State Emblem under the Act and the Rules are inadmissible piece of evidence and therefore, no reliance can be placed on such document. 11. For the reasons and discussions made here-in-above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 1st, Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 320/2016. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed with no order as to cost. 13. Registry to send back the case records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.