JUDGMENT : A.M. Bujor Barua, J Heard Mr. A.S. Tapader, 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 areas, 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 initially referred to the IM(D)T of Sonitpur for an adjudication as to whether she is a foreigner, who had entered India subsequent to 25.03.1971 and accordingly IM(D)T Case No.TZ(B)/99/837/BNC was registered. Subsequently on the IM(D)T Act of 1983 being declared ultra-vires by the Supreme Court, the reference made against the petitioner was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal No.5, Tezpur at Biswanath Chariali and was renumbered as FT Case No.51/2015. 3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted her written statement and a stand was taken that her father is Md. Abdul Sobhan, son of late Asmat who had been a resident of village Gaibandha under Biswanath mouza, Sootia police station in the erstwhile Darrang district. It was stated that the name of her father Abdul Sobhan appears in the NRC of 1951 bearing Card No.1261 and that his name also appears in the voters list of 1966 bearing Sl No.2607, Part-99 of Siporia Sapori PGR under the No.79 Sootea Legislative Assembly of the erstwhile Darrang district. To substantiate the stand of the petitioner, the voters list of 1966 was exhibited. The voters list of 1966 as annexed to the writ petition shows that the said list is of Part-99 of Siporia Sapori PGR and Sl No.2607 pertains to Amul Suvan, son of Hazi Asmat, aged about 46 years of house No.968. A stand has been taken that the name of Amul Suvan is actually Abdul Sobhan and has been incorrectly spelled out in the voters list. 4. In order to establish the linkage with Abdul Sobhan, who the petitioner claims to be her father, reliance had been placed on the certificate issued by the Sarkari Gaonbura of village Panibharal of Sonitpur district. As per the said certificate, it is certified that he petitioner Hazara Khatun is the daughter of late Abdul Subhan of village Gorbhitor under Biswanath Chariali police station. 5. As per the said certificate, it is certified that he petitioner Hazara Khatun is the daughter of late Abdul Subhan of village Gorbhitor under Biswanath Chariali police station. 5. For verification of the certificate, the deposition of the Gaonbura is also being relied upon. In his deposition, the Gaonbura stated that he has been the Gaonbura of Gorvitor village for about 15 years and that he knows the petitioner Hazara Khatun and that her father is Abdul Sobhan of village Gorvitor. In cross examination, the Sarkari Gaonbura stated that he does not know from which year Abdul Sobhan has been residing in the village Gorvitor. It is further stated in cross examination that other than the petitioner Hazara Khatun, the witness does not know anything about the other daughters of Abdul Sobhan. 6. In order to establish the linkage, the petitioner further relies upon a certificate issued by the secretary of the Panibharal Gaon Panchayat, which is exhibited as Exhibit-D. On a question being asked as to whether the Secretary of the Panibharal Gaon Panchayat had been examined in order to verify the certificate issued, it has been stated that the Secretary of the Panibharal Gaon Panchayat had not been examined. 7. We have also looked into the record to ascertain as to whether any application was made before the Tribunal requesting for examining the Secretary of the Panibharal Gaon Panchayat to be a witness in the matter. But the record reveals that there was no such application. In the circumstance, we have to accept that the Secretary of the Panibharal Gaon Panchayat who is the author of the certificate dated 10.07.2016, which is exhibited as Exhibit-D was not examined before the Tribunal. As regards the relevance of the certificate issued by the Sarkari Gaonbura of Gorvitor village, we have taken note of that all that the said certificate as well as the deposition of the Gaonbura states is that the petitioner is the daughter of late Abdul Sobhan of Gorvitor village. 8. As regards the relevance of the certificate issued by the Sarkari Gaonbura of Gorvitor village, we have taken note of that all that the said certificate as well as the deposition of the Gaonbura states is that the petitioner is the daughter of late Abdul Sobhan of Gorvitor village. 8. As the petitioner tries to establish her link with Abdul Sobhan, son of Hazi Asmat, whose name appears in the voters list of 1966 in respect of Part-99 of Siporia Sapori PGR, we are of the view that the certificate of the Gaonbura as well as his deposition does not establish that the petitioner is the daughter of Abdul Sobhan, son of Hazi Asmat, whose name appears in the voters list of 1966 in respect of Part-99 of Siporia Sapori PGR. 9. Section-9 of the Foreigners Act of 1946 inter-alia provides as follows:- “If any case not falling under Section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lie upon such person.” 10. From a reading of Section-9, it is apparent that the onus of proving that the proceedee is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description as the case may be, shall lie upon such person, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act. In other words, the burden of proof that the proceedee is not a foreigner would lie upon the proceedee himself or herself. In other words, the burden of proof that the proceedee is not a foreigner would lie upon the proceedee himself or herself. In a proceeding under the Foreigners Act of 1946, in order to discharge such burden, if the proceedee relies upon a particular given person, whose name appears either in a voters list of 1966 or 1970 or whose name appears in a particular land document pertaining to the said period or relies upon any other acceptable and admissible document, which establishes the existence of such person within the territory of India during the relevant period of time i.e. prior to 25.03.1971, the discharge of the burden of proof as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act of 1946 would be that the proceedee concerned would have to prove his lineage to the particular person, whose name appears in the aforesaid documents pertaining to the period prior to 25.03.1971. 11. Although Section-9 of the Foreigners Act of 1946 provides that the onus of proving that the proceedee is not a foreigner would lie upon such person notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but in order to understand the concept of burden of proof, we may still rely upon the concept of burden of proof as provided under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 provides as follows:- “Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.” 12. The concept of burden of proof as provided under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act is that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. 13. In the case at hand, under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act of 1946, the existence of facts which would be required to be proved by the proceedee is that the concerned person, whose name appears in any of the aforementioned public documents or the documents relied upon by the proceedee alone is the lineage of the proceedee. 14. 13. In the case at hand, under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act of 1946, the existence of facts which would be required to be proved by the proceedee is that the concerned person, whose name appears in any of the aforementioned public documents or the documents relied upon by the proceedee alone is the lineage of the proceedee. 14. As a corollary any evidence being led in discharge of such burden of proof, which would indicate the lineage of the proceedee to a person merely having the same or a similar name as that of the person appearing in the public documents relied upon, in our view would not be sufficient discharge of the burden of proof to establish the existence of the fact that the person named in the referred public documents constitutes the lineage of the proceedee. 15. In order to discharge the complete burden of proof, the nature and purport of the evidence must be such that the lineage is established not only with respect to the person, whose name appears in the public documents relied upon but at the same time rules out the possibility of it being linked to any other person having a same or a similar name. 16. By taking into consideration the aforesaid requirement of discharging the burden of proof as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act of 1946, the evidence rendered by the Sarkari Gaonbura through the certificate dated 03.09.2015 as well as his deposition can merely lead to a conclusion that the petitioner is the daughter of Abdul Sobhan of Gorvitor village. The same on its own cannot lead to a conclusion that the father of the petitioner is Abdul Sobhan, whose name appears in the voters list of 1966 pertaining to village Part-99 of Siporia Sapori PGR. 17. As regards the certificate dated 10.07.2016 of the Secretary of Panibharal Gaon Panchayat, we have taken note of that the author of the said certificate being the Secretary of Panibharal Gaon Panchayat had not been examined as a witness before the Tribunal. We have also verified the record as to whether any specific application was made by the petitioner before the Tribunal requiring the Tribunal to issue summon to the Secretary of Panibharal Gaon Panchayat for deposing as a witness. But the examination reveals that o such application was made. 17. We have also verified the record as to whether any specific application was made by the petitioner before the Tribunal requiring the Tribunal to issue summon to the Secretary of Panibharal Gaon Panchayat for deposing as a witness. But the examination reveals that o such application was made. 17. The law in this respect has been settled by the Supreme Court in its pronouncement rendered in Rupajan Begum-vs-Union of India and others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 579 , wherein in paragraph-16, it had been held as follows:- “16. The certificate issued by the G.P Secretary, by no means, is proof of citizenship. Such proof will come only if the link between the claimant and the legacy person (who has to be a citizen) is established. The certificate has to be verified at two stages. The first is the authenticity of the certificate itself; and the second is the authenticity of the contents thereof. The latter process of verification is bound to be an exhaustive process in the course of which the source of information of the facts and all other details recorded in the certificate will be ascertained after giving an opportunity to the holder of the certificate. If the document and its contends are to be subjected to a thorough search and probe we do ot see why the said certificate should have been interdicted by the High Court, particularly, in the context of the facts surrounding the enumeration and inclusion of the documents mentioned in the illustrative list of documents, as noticed above. In fact, the said list of illustrative documents was also laid before this Court in the course of the proceedings held from time to time and this Court was aware of the nature and effect of each of the documents mentioned in the list.” 18. Para-16 of the pronouncement in Rupajan Begum (Supra) clearly provides that the certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary has to be verified at two stages i.e. firstly the authenticity of the certificate itself and secondly the authenticity of the contents thereof. The very requirement that the certificate has to be verified at two stages is itself an implication that the author of the certificate i.e. the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat has to be examined in order to verify the certificate which had been relied upon. 19. The very requirement that the certificate has to be verified at two stages is itself an implication that the author of the certificate i.e. the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat has to be examined in order to verify the certificate which had been relied upon. 19. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rupajan Begum (supra), we are of the view that non-examination of the Secretary of the Panibharal Gaon Panchayat to verify the certificate dated 10.07.2016 renders the said certificate to be inapplicable in the present case for making it the basis to arrive at a conclusion that the father of the petitioner is Abdul Sobhan of village Gorvitor. 20. Accordingly, as the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden that she is the daughter of Abdul Sobhan, whose name appears in the voters list of 1966 pertaining to village Part-99 of Siporia Sapori PGR through any reliable and cogent evidence, which also includes the certificate of the Sarkari Gaonbura as well as his deposition and also the certificate of the Secretary of the Panibharal Gaon Panchayat dated 10.07.2016, we are of the view that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden the onus of which is placed upon her under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act of 1946. 21. In the aforesaid background, when we examined the order of the Foreigners Tribunal No.5, Tezpur at Biswanath Chariali in FT Case No.51.2015, we noticed no infirmity warranting any interference in exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as enumerated in paragraph-113 of the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in State of Assam vs Moslem Mondal, reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809. The Tribunal in its order of 28.07.2016 had rightly rejected the Exhibit-C copy of the voter identity card of the proceedee as well as Exhibit-D copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Secretary of Panibharal Gaon Panchayat as well as the Exhibit-E certificate issued by the Sarkari Gaonbura of Panibharal Gaon Panchayat. But as regards the Exhibit-A being the copy of the NRC of 1951, it is a well settled position that the extract of a NRC is inadmissible in evidence. As regards the Exhibit-B voters list of 1966, as already concluded, no linkage could be established by the petitioner with Abdul Sobhan, whose name appears in the said voters list. 22. But as regards the Exhibit-A being the copy of the NRC of 1951, it is a well settled position that the extract of a NRC is inadmissible in evidence. As regards the Exhibit-B voters list of 1966, as already concluded, no linkage could be established by the petitioner with Abdul Sobhan, whose name appears in the said voters list. 22. In view of the above, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, no order as to cost. Send back the LCR immediately.