JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Z. Hammad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the State of Assam, appearing for the Foreigners’ Tribunal and Border Areas, Ms. V. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the authorities under the NRC, Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel for the authorities under the Union of India. 2. On being referred by the Superintendent of Police, Border, Morigaon, resulting in D/N Case No. 767, dated 16.06.1998, the reference was registered as FT(D) 95/2012 in the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5, Morigaon, Assam and subsequently renumbered as FT (D) Case No. 72/2015. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner took the stand that the contents of the verification report etc. are denied by her and also relies upon the voter lists of 1965 and 1970 in the name of her grandfather and voter lists of 1977 and 1985 in the name of her father to establish that she is a citizen of India. In the written statement, further reference was made to the certificate of the Gaon Burah, the revenue receipts and the copy of Jamabandi in respect of her father and some other original documents but without specifying the contents thereof. 3. We have perused the voter list of 1965 which shows the name of Alimuddin Bepari, son of Abbass age 55 years, house No. 226 of Village Moirabari, P.S. Laharighat at Sl. 688. The voter list of 1970 also shows the name of Alimuddin Bepari. The petitioner claimed that the aforementioned Alimuddin Bepari is the grandfather of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner further relies upon the voter list of 1977 of Village Moirabari which contains the name of Alimuddin, son of Abbas at Sl. No. 184 and that of Alauddin at SL. 187. The petitioner claims that Alauddin at Sl. No. 187 of the voter list of 1977 is her father. 5. In order to establish the link, the petitioner relies upon the birth certificate dated 10.03.2014 which is understood to have been signed by the Registrar of Birth and Death, although the seal is not legible and on the top left side of the birth certificate, there appears a round seal of the office of the Laharighat P.H.C. of Morigaon District. It is not clear as which of the two authorities issued the birth certificate i.e. whether it was issued by PHC, Laharighat or the Registrar of Birth and Death. It is not clear as which of the two authorities issued the birth certificate i.e. whether it was issued by PHC, Laharighat or the Registrar of Birth and Death. Secondly, it is also stated on being asked that the person certifying the birth certificate dated 10.03.2014 had not been examined. 6. To that extent, Mr. Z. Hammad without actually producing it, seeks refer to a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to substantiate that the birth certificate issued by the appropriate authority need not be further proved. We are unable to accept the said contention of Mr. Z. Hammad inasmuch as the register of birth and death is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 76 provides as to what would constitute a certified copy of a public document. Section 77 provides that the certified copy of a public document may be produced in proof of its contents. 7. The birth certificate exhibited and relied upon by the petitioner do not conform to all the requirements of Section 76 and therefore, it cannot be considered to be certified copy. If it is not be a certified copy, the provisions of Section 77 of the Evidence Act of 1872 will not be applicable. Therefore, the contention that the birth certificate need not be proved is found to be unacceptable. In such a view of the matter the reliance upon the contents of the birth certificate is found to be unadmissible in the present case. 8. The petitioner also relies upon the certificate dated 03.02.2014 of the President of Moirabari Gaon Panchayat which is exhibited as Ext. B, the certificate dated 03.12.2014 of the Gaon Burah of Moirabari Village which is exhibited as Ext.-A and the certificate dated 04.06.2015 of the Secretary of Moirabari Gaon Panchayat to establish a linkage that she is the daughter of Alauddin. Upon verification of the record, we find that neither the Goan Bura nor the President and the Secretary of the Moirabari Gaon Panchayat has been examined in order to establish the contents of the aforesaid three certificates. 9. In the absence of the persons certifying the certificates being not examined, the certificates on their own do not carry any evidentiary value in favour of the petitioner. 10. 9. In the absence of the persons certifying the certificates being not examined, the certificates on their own do not carry any evidentiary value in favour of the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner had failed to establish the link with Alauddin whose name appeared in the voter list of 1977 in respect of Moirabari Village, who in turn is the son of Alimuddin whose name also appeared in the voter lists of 1960 and 1970. The Tribunal in its order dated 16.05.2016 was of the view that the petitioner could not establish the link between the person Alauddin whose name appeared in the voter list of 1977 and the person Alauddin who is claimed to be her father to be one and the same person. We are unable to find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal dated 16.05.2016 in view of the conclusion as indicated above. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is found devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. 12. LCR be sent back forthwith.