JUDGMENT : 1. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked by filing the instant petition. The petitioner has put to challenge the opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Karimganj vide Judgment & Order dated 30.08.2016 passed in F.T. Case No. 428/2013. By the impugned judgment, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner and consequent directions have been passed. 2. The facts of the case may be narrated briefly as follows: 3. A reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Karimganj to the learned Tribunal for an opinion on the status as to whether the petitioner was a foreigner or an Indian citizen. On registration of the reference, notices were issued and the petitioner who was the opposite-party had contested the reference by filing written statement and adducing evidence. 4. The pleaded case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that she was an Indian citizen having born in the district of Karimganj with her fathers name was Siddek Ali whose name was enlisted in the Voters list of 1966 as well as NRC data of the same year. Even prior to that, the name of the father of the petitioner was enlisted in the NRC for the year 1951 and that her grandfather Kutub Ali has purchased land vide registered Sale Deed in the year 1969. The petitioner has further stated that her name appears in the electoral rolls of the year 1993 and upon her marriage with Abdul Salam Khan she had transferred her residence and in that regard the Kabil Nama was exhibited as Ext.-6. The name of the husband of the petitioner in the NRC of the year 1951 and 1971 have been highlighted. 5. As stated above, the petitioner adduced evidence through herself as the sole witness from her side. Along with the same affidavit, 13 nos. of documents were annexed. 6. The learned Tribunal had fixed 24.05.2016 as the date for cross-examination on which date, the petitioner was not accompanied by her Lawyer and the learned Assistant Government Pleader was also absent due to some strike. In absence of the counsel, the learned Member of the Tribunal had cross-examined the petitioner and thereafter, the judgment dated 30.08.2016 has been passed. 6. The learned Tribunal had fixed 24.05.2016 as the date for cross-examination on which date, the petitioner was not accompanied by her Lawyer and the learned Assistant Government Pleader was also absent due to some strike. In absence of the counsel, the learned Member of the Tribunal had cross-examined the petitioner and thereafter, the judgment dated 30.08.2016 has been passed. It may be mentioned that initially the petitioner had preferred a review before the learned Tribunal on the ground that she was not accompanied by her counsel on the date of cross-examination. However the learned Tribunal vide order dated 12.01.2017 had rejected the same application holding that no ground for review was made out as no prejudice, whatsoever was caused to the petitioner. 7. We have heard Shri D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri U.K. Nair, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for respondent nos. 2 to 5. None appears for respondent no.1. We have also carefully examined the records which were requisitioned vide an earlier order. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court has to keep in mind that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is the decision making process only which would constitute the subject matter of scrutiny. This Court is not an appellant Court and would not make a roving enquiry and go into the details of the evidence recorded before the learned Tribunal. Interference would generally be refused with the opinions of the Tribunal which are findings of facts unless i. The findings are perverse; ii. Relevant materials are ignored/overlooked; iii. Irrelevant and extraneous materials are taken into consideration; iv. The findings are so unreasonable and arbitrary that no reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have arrived at the same. 9. Having reminded ourselves of the self imposed restrictions, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 30.08.2016 is sought to be scrutinised. It is also necessary to be kept in mind that under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the proceedee has a heavy burden to discharge and not only all the facts are required to be pleaded, the same are required to be proved by cogent evidence and in accordance with law. 10. It is also necessary to be kept in mind that under section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the proceedee has a heavy burden to discharge and not only all the facts are required to be pleaded, the same are required to be proved by cogent evidence and in accordance with law. 10. In the instant case amongst the various documents brought on record, the link documents are seen to be the Electoral Rolls of the year 1966 containing the name of one Siddeque Ali, son of Kutub Ali of Moujkarni, of No. 7 South Karimganj LAC and the Voters list of the year 1993 containing the name of Jahanara Begum, daughter of Siddeque Ali of Khagail of No. 5 Badarpur LAC. It is the contention of the petitioner that Siddeque Ali is her father and Jahanara Begum is the petitioner herself, even though she is also known as Jahanara Khanam. To fortify her claim, reliance has been put on the certificate dated 16.03.2016 issued by the Secretary of Monesangan Gaon Panchayat, district Karimganj certifying Jahanara Khanam to be the daughter of Siddek Ali of village Khagail (Ghatail). Reliance have also been made on the school certificate issued in the year 1995 stating that Jahahara Khanam is the daughter of Siddek Ali and is the resident of village Ghatail and also the Kabilnama. Though these three documents were marked exhibits, the author of the same were not examined and in such absence, the same cannot be treated as evidence in the eyes of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 745 and in the case of LIC, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491 has categorically laid down that mere marking of a document as exhibit does not amount to proof of a document and the contents of the same are required to be proved in accordance with law. 11. As regards the two voters lists mentioned above, the same cannot be taken to be a clinching evidence inasmuch as in the cross-examination, the petitioner had stated as follows: "The village Ghatail is next to Mouzkorni and village Khagail is at a quite distance from Mouzkorni." 12. The said cross-examination 25.07.2016 reveals that the petitioner has seven siblings and yet none was there to adduce evidence on her behalf. The said cross-examination 25.07.2016 reveals that the petitioner has seven siblings and yet none was there to adduce evidence on her behalf. In absence of any other credible evidence, it cannot be said that the opinion expressed by the learned Tribunal suffer from any material infirmity or illegality. 13. In view of the above, we hold that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 17.03.2017 stands vacated. All consequent actions upon the opinion of the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Karimganj be taken accordingly. 14. Registry is directed to send back the records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.