JUDGMENT : (Soumitra Saikia, J) 1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned standing counsel, NRC, Ms. B.Das, learned standing counsel, Election Commission, Mr. A. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Foreigners’ Tribunal appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the opinion dated 17-01-2009 passed in F.T. Case No. 23 /2016 corresponding to R/Case No. 10787/98, rendered by the Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal No.6, Barpeta, declaring the petitioner to be foreigner/ illegal migrant who had entered Assam on or after 25-03-1971 and thereby answering the reference in affirmative. The opinion was rendered upon the reference being IM(D)T No. 10787/98 forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Border, Barpeta. 3. To discharge the burden as required under section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act 1946 to prove that the petitioner is not a foreigner, the petitioner projected Janik @Janik Ali @Janir Uddin as his father and Basiran Nessa as his mother. The petitioner contested the case upon receipt of the Notice by appearing before the Tribunal and filing the written statement denying the allegations that he is an illegal migrant in terms of Foreigners’ Act 1946 and the Foreigners’ (Tribunal) order 1964. To substantiate his claim the petitioner exhibited the following documents: (i) Exhibit-A is the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1966 showing the names of Janifuddin son of Jaher and Basiran wife of Janif were projected as the father and mother respectively of the petitioner, of village Kholabanda Nonke, Part No. 108, Mouza-Baguribari, Sub-Division Barpeta under 54 Chenga Legislative Assembly (LAC). (ii) Exhibit-B is the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1970 showing the name of Janiruddin son of Jaher and Basiran Nessa wife of Janir, projected as the father and mother respectively of the petitioner, of village Baghmarachar Nonke, Part No. 51, Mouza-Baghbar, Sub-Division Barpeta under 52 Baghbar Legislative Assembly (LAC). (iii) Exhibit-C is the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1985 to show the name of his projected brother namely Abdul Barek under 45 Baghbar Legislative Asembly. (iv) Exhibit-D is the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1989 showing the name of Janikuddin son of Jaher and Basiran Nessa wife Janik, projected as the father and mother respectively of the petitioner, of village Baghmarachar Nanke, Part No. 45, Mouza-Baghbar, Sub-Division Barpeta under 45 Baghbar Legislative Assembly (LAC). (iv) Exhibit-D is the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1989 showing the name of Janikuddin son of Jaher and Basiran Nessa wife Janik, projected as the father and mother respectively of the petitioner, of village Baghmarachar Nanke, Part No. 45, Mouza-Baghbar, Sub-Division Barpeta under 45 Baghbar Legislative Assembly (LAC). (v) Exhibit-E is the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1997 showing the name of Basiran Nessa wife of Janik, projected as mother of the petitioner, of village Baghmarachar, Part No. 45, Mouza-Baghbar, Sub-Division Barpeta under 45 Baghbar Legislative Assembly (LAC). (vi) Exhibit-F is the Certificate issued by Gaonburah dated 23-02-2016 of village Baghmarachar certifying the petitioner is the Son of Late Janif Uddin of village No 4 Baghmarachar, Mouza-Baghbar within the district of Barpeta. (vii) Exhibit-G is an affidavit sworn by the petitioner. The petitioner also examined 2 (two) witnesses namely, the petitioner himself as DW 1 and the Gaonburah as DW 2. 4. In the written statements filed before the Tribunal, petitioner disclosed that he was born in the village Baghmara Char under Baghbar Mouza. His father’s name was Janiruddin and that it appeared in the Voter’s List of 1970 at serial no. 810, House No. 2, Part No. 51 at village Baghmarachar Nonke under 52 Baghbar Legislative Assembly Constituency. He further stated that his second brother Abdul Barek’s name appeared in the Voter List of 1985 and 1989 at village Baghmarachar Nonke vide serial no. 1011 and 507, House No. 152 and 168, parts nos. 45 & 46 under 45 Baghbar Legislative Assembly Constituency (LAC). His own name had appeared in the Voter’s List of 1989 and 1997. He further stated that his father’s correct name is Janik Ali but in the Voter List of 1970 it was entered as Janiruddin instead of Janik Ali and similarly in the Voter’s List of the year 1989 and 1997, the petitioner’s name has been wrongly entered as Farijal Hoque and Farijul Hoque instead of Farij Ali. According to the petitioner Farijal Hoque, Farijul Hoque and Farij Ali are one and the same person. There was no other disclosure of any material on the basis of which the lineage was sought to be established by the petitioner. According to the petitioner Farijal Hoque, Farijul Hoque and Farij Ali are one and the same person. There was no other disclosure of any material on the basis of which the lineage was sought to be established by the petitioner. There was no reference to his grandparents for instance, or where he was born, how he is brought up and how many children/siblings that the petitioner have and whether they had ever casted vote in India or not. The petitioner also did not disclose his mother’s name and when approximately they were married etc. He also did not disclose about the date of his birth, whether he was married, whether he had casted vote and which year. There was also no mention about other family members of the petitioner. 5. Exhibit A which is the voter list for the year 1966 was relied upon by the petitioner to project the name of his father and mother namely, Janif Uddin, son of Jaher and Basiran, wife of Janif. However, this document is not admissible in evidence because this was not pleaded in the written statement before the Tribunal. Exhibit-B the voter list of 1970, there are names of as many as 13 persons shown as voters. At serial no. 810 the name of the projected father of the petitioner Janiruddin, Son of Jaher, aged about 32 years is shown . However, the same voter list reflects the name of the voters Jaigun Nessa at serial no. 801 as the daughter of Jaher, at serial No. 802 Maiad Ali as the son of Jaher, at serial No. 804 Mobarak Ali son of Jaher, at serial no. 806 Rajan Ali son of Jaher, at serial No. 808 Rahamatulla son of Jaher and at serial No. 813 Nurul Haque son of Jaher. The written statement filed as well as the evidence of petitioner adduced before the Tribunal does not reflect as to who these voters are and who are apparently also shown to be sons and daughters of Jaher. There is no description by the petitioner of these voters or any of the other voters whose names appear in the voters list of 1970. Exhibit C which is the voter list of 1985 is not enclosed to the present writ petition. There is no description by the petitioner of these voters or any of the other voters whose names appear in the voters list of 1970. Exhibit C which is the voter list of 1985 is not enclosed to the present writ petition. Insofar as the Exhibit D is concerned the petitioner has relied upon Exhibit D to show his name as it appears in the voters list of 1989. At serial no. 509 the petitioner projects that his name appears as Farijal Hoque son of Janik, at serial no. 511 petitioner projects that his father’s name Janikuddin appears and is shown as son of Jaher. At serial No. 512 petitioner submits that his mother’s name Basiran Nessa is shown as the wife of Janik. The petitioner relies on Exhibit E which is the Electoral Roll for 1997 where the name of his projected mother appears at serial No. 426 at Basiran Nessa, wife of Janik. The petitioner’s name is also shown to have appeared at serial no. 424 as Farijul Hoque as Janik. Exhibit F is the Gaonburah certificate which dated 23-02-2016. The certificate is to the effect that “Fariz Ali” son of Janifuddin, of village No. 4, Baghmarachar, Post office-Baghmarachar, PS-Alopatichar, Mouza-Baghbar, District-Barpeta, Assam, is a permanent resident of village No. 4, Baghmarachar. 6. The petitioner examined 2 (two) witnesses namely petitioner himself as DW1 and DW2 is the Gaonburah Ainuddin who had issued the certificate which was produced as Exhibit F. The deposition of the petitioner as DW1 supports the statements he had already made and/or brought on record in his written statements. He has not been able to establish any lineage to his projected father or mother. A perusal of the deposition the Gaonburah reveals that the DW2 also has not been able to disclose material facts which establishes the link or the lineage between the petitioner and his projected father Janik Uddin. In his deposition although the DW2 mentioned that he knows the petitioner from his boyhood and that he is a resident of Baghmarachar. However, the DW2 mentioned that his father’s name is Manikuddin @ Jainikuddin. No documents or valid papers were referred to or relied upon by the petitioner or by the DW2, Gaonburah to project that the person projected to be the father of the petitioner namely Janikuddin is also known as Manikuddin. 7. However, the DW2 mentioned that his father’s name is Manikuddin @ Jainikuddin. No documents or valid papers were referred to or relied upon by the petitioner or by the DW2, Gaonburah to project that the person projected to be the father of the petitioner namely Janikuddin is also known as Manikuddin. 7. As the primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 and the Foreigners’ (Tribunals) Order 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee/petitioner is a Foreigner or not, the relevant facts being especially within the knowledge of the proceedee, therefore, the burden of proving citizenship absolutely also rests upon the proceedee. This is mandate under section 9 of the aforesaid Act 1946. In the instant case as observed above, the petitioner not only failed to discharge the burden but also utterly failed to make proof of the most crucial aspect, that is, in establishing linkage to his projected parents by any of the exhibits produced before the Tribunal below. 8. On the available materials, we find that the Tribunal rendered opinion/order upon due appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and documents brought on record. We find no infirmity in the findings and opinion recorded by the Tribunal. We would observe that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal. No case is made out that the impugned opinion/order was rendered without affording opportunity of hearing or in violation of the principles of natural justice and/or that it suffers from illegality on any ground of having been passed by placing reliance on evidence which is legally impermissible in law and/or that the Tribunal refused to admit admissible evidence and/or that the findings finds no support by any evidence at all. In other words, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case demonstrating any errors apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference of the impugned opinion. 9. On the discussions and findings above, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost. 10. A copy of this order be made part of the case records of the Tribunal for future reference.