ORDER : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for the respondents no.2 to 4. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the opinion dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.8th, Barpeta in F.T. case No.344/2016 arising out of the I.M.(D) T. Reference Case No. 8064 (A)/ 97which was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta whereby it was opined that the petitioner is a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. 3. Referring to the written statement filed by the petitioner as well as the evidence of DW-1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioner was born and brought up in Village-Bunmaja Pather under Sarbhog L.A.C. The petitioner projected Kasar Sk as his father and Gaduli Bibi as his mother and Mazar Sk as his grand-father and that their names appear in the National Register of Citizen (NRC for short) of 1951. The petitioner projects that his parents died prior to 1965 and that his paternal uncle, namely, Abdul Hashem is still alive. It is projected that the name of the projected grand-father of the petitioner appeared in the electoral roll of 1965 and 1970 and that the name of his projected father also appeared in the electoral roll before 1965. It is submitted that the name of his projected uncle appeared in the electoral roll of 1989. 4. It is projected that the father of the petitioner had shifted from Bunmaja Pather Village to Joshihati Village due to communal riots and violence in Bodoland Territorial Autonomous District (BTAD) in 1994 and, as such, his father’s name was dropped from the voters list of Bunmaja Pather Village since 1997. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner appeared in the electoral roll of village Joshihatipara of 1997 and 2005, but with “D” mark. The petitioner claims to have shifted back to Village Bunmaja Pather after 2005. It is submitted that the actual name of the petitioner is Abdul Monnaf, which correctly appeared in the electoral roll of 1989 of Bunmaja Pather Village, but he is also known as Monnaf Ali and his said name appears in the voters list of Joshihati village. The petitioner claims to have shifted back to Village Bunmaja Pather after 2005. It is submitted that the actual name of the petitioner is Abdul Monnaf, which correctly appeared in the electoral roll of 1989 of Bunmaja Pather Village, but he is also known as Monnaf Ali and his said name appears in the voters list of Joshihati village. Accordingly, it is submitted that Abdul Monnaf and Monnaf Ali are the two names of the petitioner. 5. In support of his case the petitioner has exhibited the voters list of 1965 (Ext.A), voters list of 1970 (Ext.B), Gaonburha’s certificate (Ext.C). Abul Hashem, the petitioner’s projected uncle was examined as DW-2 and he had exhibited Gaonburha’s certificate (Ext.D), HSLC certificate (Ext.E), voters list of 1997 (Ext.F), voters list of 2005 (Ext.G) and Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext.H). It is submitted that apart from exhibiting the said documents, along with the evidence-in-chief, the petitioner had also annexed copies of NRC records and legacy data viz., NRC details (Annexure-1 to 4), photocopy of voters list (Annexure-5) and copy of the voters list of 1989 (Annexure-6). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal had attempted mechanically without applying judicial mind and rejected the relevant documents and wrongly held that the petitioner is a foreigner. It is submitted that the evidence was not correctly appreciated by the learned Tribunal and that by picking up some small discrepancies in the exhibited documents, the defence of the petitioner was summarily rejected and, as such the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned opinion. 7. The record as received from the learned Tribunal has been examined. As per the 1951 NRC details, Najar Sk, son of Fazar Sk was aged 59 years, as such, the projected grand-father of the petitioner was born in or about the year 1982. It is revealed in the cross-examination of the petitioner recorded on 28.04.2017 that about 25 years ago his grandfather had died, as such, it appears that the grandfather of the petitioner died sometime in the year 1992 at the age of about 100 years. However, as per the evidence on record, his name has appeared only in 2 (two) voters list of 1965 and 1970. However, as per the evidence on record, his name has appeared only in 2 (two) voters list of 1965 and 1970. In the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner as DW-1, it is seen that there is no statement to the effect that the name of his projected grand-father appeared in any other voter list except 1965 and 1970. There is conspicuous absence of any statement about the name of the grand-mother and the reason why no voters list has been exhibited wherein the name of grand-mother of the petitioner has appeared. As per the declaration made by the projected uncle of the petitioner, i.e. Abul Hashem (DW-2), his age was 60 years on 15.05.2017, when his evidence-on-affidavit was filed and, as such the uncle of the petitioner appears to be was born in or about the year 1957. The said DW-2 has not explained the reason why his name has not appeared in any voters list along with the name of his projected grand-father. It is seen that although the voters list of 2005 has been annexed to this writ petition as Annexure-5(A), it appears that no steps had been taken to call for the record from its custodian and to prove the said record. In the said voters list, the name of one Monnaf Ali, son of Kasar, appears at Sl. No.489, upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon, however, on a perusal of the same, it is seen that the age of the petitioner therein is 35 years in the year 2005, as such, the year of birth would be in or about the year 1970, which is not easily acceptable because as per the written statement as well as per the stand taken by the DW-1 i.e. the petitioner and his uncle (DW-2) in their respective evidence-on-affidavit, the father of the petitioner had died in the year 1965. There is also no explanation by the petitioner why the name of the mother does not appear in any of the voters list brought on record. As in none of the documents, the name of the petitioner appears with his projected parents as well as his grand-father, thus, out of the documents exhibited by the petitioner, the two Gaonbura’s certificates i.e. Ext.C and Ext.D is the only link between the petitioner with his projected parents and projected grand-father. As in none of the documents, the name of the petitioner appears with his projected parents as well as his grand-father, thus, out of the documents exhibited by the petitioner, the two Gaonbura’s certificates i.e. Ext.C and Ext.D is the only link between the petitioner with his projected parents and projected grand-father. Out of these two certificates, the petitioner has not examined A. Rashid, the Gaonburaof Joshihati Village, who had issued Ext.D, as such, the said document was not proved. In respect of the other Gaonbura’s certificate dated 17.12.2016 (Ext.C), it is seen that Amirul Islam, Gaonburaof Bunmaja Pather, who had issued the said certificate was examined as Court witness. He had stated in his examination-in-chief that he had issued the certificate after seeing 1997 voters list. He became Gaonburain the year 2006. He had stated that he had not seen the parents of the petitioner or any voter list except 1997. The said statement in his examination-in-chief has demolished the veracity of Ext.C, because as per contents of Ext.C, the purpose of issuing the certificate is that as per the voters list of 1989, the petitioner was a resident of Bunmaja Pathar. However, as indicated herein before, the voters list of 1989 was merely filed as Annexure-6, but not exhibited by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. 8. The documents marked as Exhibits No. E, F, G and H by the DW-2 is examined. The HSLC certificate (Ext.E) does not prove the name of the father of the said DW-2. In the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the DW-2 on 15.05.2017, although in paragraph 13, a statement is made that the name of the petitioner appears in the voters list of 1997 and 2005, but on a perusal of the voters list of 1997 (Ext.F), only the name of DW-2 and one Fatema Begum appears. On perusal of the voters list of 2005 (Ext.G), it is seen that the names appearing therein are Abdul Hashem, Fatema Begum, Hasina Khatun and Sofiur Hoque, but the name of the petitioner is conspicuously absent. The Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext.H) is also not a proof of establishing any relationship between the petitioner and his projected parents or projected grand-father. 9. The Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext.H) is also not a proof of establishing any relationship between the petitioner and his projected parents or projected grand-father. 9. It may be stated that on the insistence by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have perused the uncertified copy of voters list of 1989 and 2005, which we would have not otherwise done because these documents were not exhibited before the learned Tribunal. It was submitted that in the voters list of 1989, the name of the petitioner is reflected as Abdul Monnaf (age-29) at Sl. No. 572 of Village-Bunmaja Pathar and in the same voters list, the name of the projected uncle of the petitioner i.e. Abul Hashem also appears, and it is submitted that the link between the petitioner and DW-2 stands established. We are unable to appreciate the said projection because at the name of his wife appearing at Sl. No. 573 is Tolbahar Nessa, but in another uncertified copy of voters list of 2005 [Annexure-5(A) to the writ petition], the name of voter is Monnaf Ali (age-35) of Village-Joshihati and his wife’s name is shown as Firoza Khatun (husband-Monnaf Ali, age 20), as such, it is apparent that Abdul Monnaf of Village-Bunmaja Pathar and Monnaf Ali of Village-Joshihati are two different persons. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has not been able to establish any link with his projected father as well as his projected grand-father or his projected paternal uncle (DW-2). Thus, there is no ground on which the opinion impugned herein is liable to be interfered with. 10. The primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not. Therefore, as the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the proceedee, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving citizenship absolutely rests upon the proceedee as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In the present case in hand, the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden and to prove that she is an offspring of parents of Indian origin. 11. In the present case in hand, the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden and to prove that she is an offspring of parents of Indian origin. 11. In light of discussions above, this Court does not find that the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by any jurisdictional error or that there was any failure of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, as the Court is exercising supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting the opinion rendered by the learned tribunal with the view of the Court. This is not a case where the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidence or that its finding is dehors the evidence on record. 12. Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 13. A copy of this order may be made a part of the records of the learned Tribunal for future reference. The case records of the Tribunal be returned.