JUDGMENT : A.M. BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. UK Nair, learned standing counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border matters, Ms. A Verma, learned standing counsel for the authorities under the NRC as well as Ms. G Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India. 2. The petitioner was referred by the Superintendent of Police to the Illegal Migrants Determination Tribunal, Barpeta, resulting in IM(D)T Case No.1275/2004. Upon the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act of 1983 being declared ultra-vires, the reference case registered against the petitioner was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No.9 at Barpeta and was renumbered as FT.9th (BPT) Case No.193/2015. 3. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and submitted his written statement, wherein a stand was taken that the petitioner is known by two names i.e. A. Billat Ali and Billal Ali. It was also stated that the good name of his father was Amuz, while some people called him Amod Ali, Ahammad Ali, Karim Ali and Abdul Karim, which were his nick names. It was also stated that the name of the mother of the petitioner is Jamila Khatun. A stand was also taken that although the name of the father of the petitioner is Amuz, but in the NRC of 1951, it appears as Amud Ali instead of Amuz. It was also stated that the grandfather of the petitioner is Subed Ali, whose name appeared in the voters list of 1961 bearing Sl No.98, House No.121 at village Khairabari, Mauza- Gobardhana, Thana - Sorbhog, District- the then Kamrup as well as in the amended/additional voters list of 1971 of village Khairabari. It was further stated that the name of the father of the petitioner also appeared in the amended/additional voters list of 1971, wherein also his name was stated as Amuz. 4. The petitioner thereupon relied upon the voters list of 2008 bearing Sl No.45, House No.16 of village Barpeta Road, Ward No.1, Mauza-Gobardhana, Thana-Sorbhog, Part No.95 under 40 No.Sorbhot LAC, District-Barpeta, Assam as well as the voters list of the year 2016 vide Sl No.64 bearing the same particulars. 5. 4. The petitioner thereupon relied upon the voters list of 2008 bearing Sl No.45, House No.16 of village Barpeta Road, Ward No.1, Mauza-Gobardhana, Thana-Sorbhog, Part No.95 under 40 No.Sorbhot LAC, District-Barpeta, Assam as well as the voters list of the year 2016 vide Sl No.64 bearing the same particulars. 5. The learned Tribunal in its order dated 21.08.2018 arrived at a conclusion that although it is the claim of the petitioner that the name of his father Amuz finds place in the voters list of 1966, but the petitioner had failed to establish his linkage with Amuz, whose name appeared in the voters list as well with the projected grandfather Sabed Ali, who happens to be the father of Amuz as per the said voters list. 6. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ in the nature of certiorari against the orders of the Foreigners Tribunals is provided in paragraph-113 of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in State of Assam & Others –vs- Moslem Mondal & Others, reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809, which is as follows:- “113. The Apex Court in Sant Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. reported in (2010)13 SCC 336 , reiterating the grounds on which a writ of certiorari can be issued, has opined that such a writ can be issued only when there is a failure of justice and cannot be issued merely because it may be legally permissible to do so. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioners to show that a jurisdictional error has been committed by the statutory authority. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record, as the High Court acts merely in a supervisory capacity and not as the appellate authority. An error apparent on the face of the records means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two WP(C) 2988/2015 oral dated 09/06/15 Page 10 of 11 opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matters to show its incorrectness. Such error may include giving reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate. Such error should not require any extraneous matters to show its incorrectness. Such error may include giving reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate. It may also include the application of a wrong legal test to the facts found, taking irrelevant consideration into account and failing to take relevant consideration into account, and wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence as well as arriving at a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Such a writ can also be issued when there is an error in jurisdiction or authority whose order is to be reviewed has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law.” 7. In order to examine the correctness of the opinion of the Tribunal, we have examined the voters list of 1965, which contains the name of Sabed Ali at Sl No.1172 of village Khairabari, Mauza-Gobardhana, Part-91, PS-Sorbhog of District-Kamrup. We have also examined the voters list of 1971, which contains the name of Subed Ali at Sl No.1787 as well as that of Amuz, son of Subed at Sl No.1791. We have also examined the voters list of 1997, which contains the name of the petitioner at Sl No.49 showing the name of his father to be Karim. We have also examined the voters list of 2008 relied upon by the petitioner, which shows his name at Sl No.45 where the name of his father was shown as Karim Ali. 8. In order to establish his linkage with Amuz, whose name finds place in the voters list of 1971, the petitioner in his deposition had stated that although the name of his father was Amuz, but some people called him as Amud Ali, Ahmad Ali, Abdul Karim and Karim Ali and that those were his nick names as he had worked at different places for the livelihood of the family. In the cross examination, the petitioner clearly stated that in the subsequent voters list wherein his name appeared, the name of his father Amuz does not find place. The petitioner also examined Sri Bimal Saha, son of Late Madhusudhan Saha as DW-4, who happens to be a Ward Commissioner of Barpeta Road Town. In the cross examination, the petitioner clearly stated that in the subsequent voters list wherein his name appeared, the name of his father Amuz does not find place. The petitioner also examined Sri Bimal Saha, son of Late Madhusudhan Saha as DW-4, who happens to be a Ward Commissioner of Barpeta Road Town. In his deposition, the Ward Commissioner stated that he knows that the name of the father of the petitioner is Karim Ali and that he had seen the family members of the petitioner. In cross examination he also stated that he does not maintain a Register Book of the names of the person who resides in the ward, but he issued the certificates on the basis of the documents shown to him by the concerned person. 9. In view of the aforesaid evidence led by the petitioner, wherein except for a statement made in the written statement and in his deposition that his father was also known by some other names like Abdul Karim, Karim Ali etc, there is no reliable and cogent material which would indicate that the name of the father of the petitioner was Amuz. As the petitioner intends to link up with Amuz, whose name appeared in the voters list of 1971 to establish that he is a citizen of India and further the petitioner having failed to produce any evidence to show that Amuz, whose name appeared in the voters list of 1971 is his father, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish his linkage with either with Subed or with Amuz, whose names appeared in the voters list of 1965 and 1971 cannot be faulted with. Further, the evidence of the DW-4 who is an independent witness being the Ward Commissioner also makes it explicitly clear that the father of the petitioner is Karim Ali and therefore, no linkage can be arrived at with Amuz, whose name appeared in the voters list of 1971. 10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no infirmity in the order dated 21.08.2018 of the Foreigners Tribunal No.9, Barpeta in FT 9th (BPT) Case No.193/2015 can be found and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed on being devoid of any merit. However, no order as to cost. Return the LCR.