JUDGMENT : A.M. BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Mobaraque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the State of Assam appearing for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border matters, Ms. U. Das, 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 to the Foreigners Tribunal for an adjudication as to whether she is a foreigner, who had entered into the territory of India after 25.03.1971. Accordingly, HFT Case No.621/2015 (F.T Case No.2101/2006) was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal No.4, Kamrup (R) at Hajo. 3. The petitioner claims that the name of her father Ofazuddin, son of Jaharuddin finds place in the voters list of 1966 in respect of village No.2 Larkuchi, Mauza Paschim Barkhetri, PS-Nalbari, Sub division-Guwahati of district Kamrup in respect of No.54 Chenga LAC, Part No.13. In order to establish her linkage that the said Ofazuddin referred in the voters list of 1966 is her father, the petitioner relies upon a transfer certificate issued by the Principal of Peradhara HS School, Larkuchi dated 07.07.2018. In the said certificate, it is certified that the petitioner is the daughter of Offaz. The petitioner further relies upon the Jamabandi of the No.2 Larkuchi village, whrein in respect of Patta No.156, the name of Md. Ofazuddin, son of Jaharuddin appears. The petitioner also relies upon two other certificates dated 18.07.2018 of the Gaobura of Larkuchi village as well as a certificate issued by the Secretary of No.57 Dulashal Larkuchi Gaon Panchayat. 4. On a pointed query, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that neither the Principal of the Peradhara HS School nor the Gaonbura of No.2 Larkuchi village as well as the Secretary of No.57 Dulashal Larkuchi Gaon Panchayat had been examined to prove the contents of the respective certificates issued by them. 4. On a pointed query, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that neither the Principal of the Peradhara HS School nor the Gaonbura of No.2 Larkuchi village as well as the Secretary of No.57 Dulashal Larkuchi Gaon Panchayat had been examined to prove the contents of the respective certificates issued by them. The Tribunal in its order dated 04.10.2018 in FT Case No.2101/2006 (HFT Case No.261/2015) had given a due consideration to the aforesaid evidences led by the petitioner and was of the view that in the absence of examination of the party certifying the certificates and proving the contents therein, the concerned certificates cannot be relied upon under the law to establish the link of the petitioner with Ofazuddin, son of Jaharuddin, whose name appears in the voters list of 1966. The Tribunal in its order had also given a consideration to the Exhibit-10 Jamabandi relied upon by the petitioner and was of the view that as there is an entry in the remark column of the Jamabandi dated 30.03.1974,the same by itself also does not indicate that the land holder, whose name is indicated therein was present within the territory of India prior to the cutoff date of 25.03.1971 and also that there is no such name of Ufazuddin, Ufaz Ali or Ufaz as a recorded Pattadar in the said Patta. 5. It is also taken note of that the primary reliance of the petitioner is on the transfer certificate issued by the Principal of Peradhara HS School. The law in this respect is clear that a person issuing a certificate has to prove before the authority as regards the contents of the said certificate. Further, as the certificate has been issued by an authority of a school, which even if based upon the school records, would have to be further proved as regards the contents of such records. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in its order dated 04.10.2018. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. However, no order as to cost. 7. Return the LCR. 8. As indicated by Mr. A. Mobaraque, learned counsel for the petitioner that the last line of the order dated 04.10.2018 is incorrect inasmuch as the order was pronounced on 04.10.2018 and not on 25.06.2018. However, no order as to cost. 7. Return the LCR. 8. As indicated by Mr. A. Mobaraque, learned counsel for the petitioner that the last line of the order dated 04.10.2018 is incorrect inasmuch as the order was pronounced on 04.10.2018 and not on 25.06.2018. Although we are inclined to accept the said contention, but are of the view that the said incorrectness would not render the opinion rendered by the Tribunal to be incorrect.