JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.W. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC for the respondent no.1; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.2; Mr. G. Sarma, standing counsel for FT and Border matters, representing respondent nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 6. Challenge in this writ petition: 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Md. Harjat Ali @ Hazrat Ali @ Md. Hajarat Ali, has assailed the opinion dated 20.09.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No. FTG 135/2011, [corresponding to SP’s Enquiry No. 19/2007], thereby holding the petitioner abovenamed as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. Pleading and evidence before the Foreigners Tribunal: 3. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner had entered appearance in the case and submitted his written statement of defence. He had stated regarding the discrepancy in his name and names of other members of his family, which is as follows:- a. It was stated that his name was Md. Hazrat Ali, but his name was wrongly written as Md. Harjat Ali and Md. Hajarat Ali in certain documents and that Md. Hajarat Ali, Md. Harjat Ali and Md. Hazrat Ali is same and one person. b. He had stated that the name of his father is Md. Jamiruddin, but in some documents, his name is written as Jamiruddin, Jamiratddin, Jamiratdin and Md. Jamiratddin, which is the name of same and one person. c. The name of his grandfather is Shobdul Sekh, but in some documents, his name is written as Shobdul, and both is same and one person. 4. It was stated that his projected grandfather and father were resident of Samdhara Gaon, P.S. Rupahihat, District-Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner came to Golaghat District and resided in various rented houses. c. The name of his grandfather is Shobdul Sekh, but in some documents, his name is written as Shobdul, and both is same and one person. 4. It was stated that his projected grandfather and father were resident of Samdhara Gaon, P.S. Rupahihat, District-Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner came to Golaghat District and resided in various rented houses. In the year 1984, he had purchased agricultural land in Salmora Tup, Golaghat and in the year 1993, he had purchased residential land in the same village and since then, he is residing in Village-Salmora Tup and when he started to permanently reside in Village Salmora Tup and then he had entered his name in the voter’s list at Salmora Tup under Sarupathar Constituency, in Golaghat District. The petitioner had projected that he was born and brought up in village- Samdhara, Dist. Nagaon and his family has been residing in the said village before 1966. He claimed that his father’s name was enrolled in the voter’s list of 1965 and 1970 in the same village, and his name was enrolled in the voter’s list of 1997, 2005 and 2015, in Village- Salmora Tup. It was stated that the age of the concerned persons in the voter’s list are given by the B.L.O. or the Census Officer and hence, the age are not correctly mentioned in a certified copy. The petitioner had stated about the persons whose names appear in the electoral roll of 1965, 1970, 1997, 2005 and 2015. The petitioner has stated that vide sale deed registered on 15.05.1984 and 22.07.1993, he had purchased land in Salmora Tup. He has a Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short), dated 03.12.2015, in the name of Hajarat Ali. He had also referred to the contents of copy of School Transfer Certificate issued by the Principal of Juria H.S. School, Dist. Nagaon, where his date of birth is recorded as 01.10.1959. Accordingly, the petitioner had stated that he was a citizen of India and the proceeding has been initiated illegally and for harassment. The petitioner has also stated that his mother had expired in the year 1967 and her name was not entered in the electoral roll of 1970. 5. The evidence of the petitioner as DW-1 contains statement similar to the contents of his written statement. The petitioner has also stated that his mother had expired in the year 1967 and her name was not entered in the electoral roll of 1970. 5. The evidence of the petitioner as DW-1 contains statement similar to the contents of his written statement. As per his evidence-on-affidavit, he had exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) copy of his Photo Identification Certificate issued by the Govt. Gaonburah of Halmoratup Gaon (Ext.1); (ii) certified copy of electoral roll of 1965 (Ext.2), containing the names of Jamiruddin, his father and Sahera Khatun, his mother; (iii) certified copy of electoral roll of 1970 (Ext.3), containing the name of Jamiruddin, his father; (iv) photocopy of electoral roll of 1975 [Ext.3(A)]; (v) copy of sale deed registered on 15.05.1984 (Ext.4); (vi) copy of sale deed dated 22.07.1993 (Ext.5); (vii) certified copy of electoral roll of 1997 (Ext.6), containing his name, Hajarat Ali; (viii) certified copy of electoral roll of 2005 (Ext.7), containing his name, Hajarat Ali; (ix) certified copy of electoral roll of 2015 (Ext.8), containing his name, Hajarat Ali; (x) although as per the evidence-on-affidavit, EPIC of the petitioner dated 03.12.2015 was Ext.9, but the document exhibited as Ext.9 is the School Transfer Certificate dated 24.04.2018, in the name of Hajarat Ali; (xi) as per the evidence-on-affidavit, photocopy of School Transfer Certificate dated 04.01.1969, issued by the Principal of Telia Pathar Muktab School is Ext.10, but the said exhibited photocopy is marked as Ext.9(i), and it may be stated that there is no endorsement in the said exhibited document that the same was proved in original; (xii) as per the evidence-on-affidavit, EPIC of the petitioner dated 03.12.2015 is Ext.9, but the said document is marked as Ext.10. 6. The petitioner had examined Smt. Rupalim Sarma, Principal of Juria H.S. School, Nagaon since year 2020 as DW-2. She had stated in her examination-in-chief that she had submitted Ext.9 alongwith the documents of Tetelia Pathar Muktab School, where Md. Hazarat Ali, son of Md. Jamir Uddin, resident of Vill. Samdhora has studied has been exhibited as Ext.9(1). She had deposed that she has produced the original copy of Ext.(1) [sic. ought to have been Ext.9(1)], school admission register for the year 1969 and the counterfoil copy of Ext.9 was produced before the Tribunal. She had stated that as per the School admission register produced by her, the serial number of the name of Md. She had deposed that she has produced the original copy of Ext.(1) [sic. ought to have been Ext.9(1)], school admission register for the year 1969 and the counterfoil copy of Ext.9 was produced before the Tribunal. She had stated that as per the School admission register produced by her, the serial number of the name of Md. Hazarat Ali, son of Md. Jamir Uddin, resident of Samadhora is mentioned. She had stated that as per column 12 of the admission register, the date of birth of the abovenamed person is mentioned as 01.10.1959 and in column 13, 14 and 15, the age of the student as per admission in their school on 23.01.1969 was 22 years, 3 months and 9 days. She had stated that the student was admitted as per Ext.9(1) and as Ext.9(1) is dated 31.12.1968, the age of the student was 9 years then and therefore, the date of birth, which as per column 12 is 01.10.1959, is completely wrong and according to her, the date of birth of the above-named student was 31.09.1959. The signature in Ext.9(A) is of Sri Prasanna Kumar Kalita, the previous Principal with seal of their school. She had stated that for her identity, alongwith her school certificate, she had submitted the order dated 09.11.2020, of her appointment as Principal. 7. The petitioner had also examined Sri Prasanna Kumar Kalita, the former Principal of Juria H.S. School as DW-3. He had stated that he had taken over charge as Principal of the School in 2016 and superannuated in the year 2019. He had stated that as per Ext.9(1), on 20.01.1969, Md. Hazarat Ali, son of Md. Jamir Uddin, resident of Vill. Samdhora was admitted to the School where he was working. He had stated that in the original record of year 1969, the date of birth is mentioned in column 12 but while issuing Ext.9, he had put the date of birth as 01.10.1959 and before that, the date of birth was not mentioned in column-12. It was stated that the date of birth of the student was 01.10.1959, but the actual date of birth should have been 31.--.1959 (the space under dash-mark is found erased by applying whitener). He had also stated that though Ext.9 was a duplicate copy, but he had forgotten to mention it as duplicate. It was stated that the date of birth of the student was 01.10.1959, but the actual date of birth should have been 31.--.1959 (the space under dash-mark is found erased by applying whitener). He had also stated that though Ext.9 was a duplicate copy, but he had forgotten to mention it as duplicate. He had stated that the signature and seal of the Principal in Ext.9 (A)belonged to him. 8. It may be mentioned that as per order dated 23.12.2021, due to absence of the Asstt. Govt. Pleader, the cross-examination of DW-3 was dispensed with. Impugned opinion: 9. The learned Tribunal, vide opinion dated 20.09.2022, answered the reference in favour of the State by declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciating the materials available on record, observed to the effect that when one’s citizenship is being questioned by the State, the petitioner was required to disclose the basic material facts which were within his specific knowledge as regards when he was born and there was no mention of his age and remained completely silent regarding the names of his great grandparents, grandparental lineage. It was observed that the documents exhibited by the petitioner are in two different sets. In the first set, was the electoral rolls of 1965 (Ext.2) and 1970 (Ext.3) and the school transfer certificate dated 24.04.2018 (Ext.9), bearing details of before cut-off date of 25.03.1971. The second set of documents were of post cut-off date, being sale deed (Ext.4), sale deed (Ext.5), voter list of 1997 (Ext.6), electoral roll of 2005 (Ext.7) and electoral roll of 2015 (Ext.8). 10. The learned Tribunal had discarded the Gaonburah’s certificate dated 22.04.2018 (Ext.1), by which he had certified that Md. Hazarat Ali was residing in the village within his jurisdiction because from the entries thereof, it cannot be ascertained on what basis and on relying on which documents, the said certificate was issued. Moreover, it was also observed that from Ext.1, it cannot be understood as to whether prior to the issuance of the said certificate any inquiry or verification was ever conducted. Moreover, it was held that under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the Govt. Gaonburah has not been vested with any power to issue such certificate. Moreover, it was held that the said certificate was issued by relying on the entries in the voter’s list of 2005. Moreover, it was held that under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the Govt. Gaonburah has not been vested with any power to issue such certificate. Moreover, it was held that the said certificate was issued by relying on the entries in the voter’s list of 2005. 11. The learned Tribunal had made observations regarding entry of the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.10.1959, as contained in Ext.9 and 31.09.1959, as stated by DW-2. However, at this juncture, it would be appropriate to mention that the English calendar month of September does not have 31 days and therefore, the date of birth has to be construed to be 01.10.1959, as stated by DW-2. The said point appears to have been missed out by the learned Tribunal also. 12. Be that as it may, in light of the deposition of DW-3, where he had stated that Ext.9 was a duplicate, the learned Tribunal had observed that the original transfer certificate of the petitioner was not proved by the petitioner. The learned Tribunal had disbelieved the entries in Ext.9(i) on the ground that if the petitioner was admitted in 1969 in Class-IV, how it was possible for the petitioner to leave the said school on 31.12.1968 by passing out Class-VI. Moreover, the learned Tribunal took note of the fact that the said certificate was issued few months before his retirement and relied on the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, (1995) 3 SCC 17 . Moreover, it was observed that the reference was made in 2007 and the reference was registered before the said learned Tribunal in the year 2011. 13. Accordingly, it was held that Hazrat Ali is the son of Jamiratdin of Salmora Tup village and that the petitioner had failed to establish any relationship with Jamir Uddin, son of Sobdul, whose name appears in Ext. nos. 2, 3 and 3(A). Thus, the second set of documents, which were of post cut-off date did not help the petitioner. Therefore, by the impugned opinion, the reference was answered against the petitioner. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the learned Tribunal had answered the reference against the petitioner merely because of minor mistake of spelling of the names of the parents and grandparents in the voters list. Therefore, by the impugned opinion, the reference was answered against the petitioner. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the learned Tribunal had answered the reference against the petitioner merely because of minor mistake of spelling of the names of the parents and grandparents in the voters list. It was submitted that the erroneous recording of names in the voters list was not because of the petitioner. In support of the said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Sirajul Hoque v. The State of Assam & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 267/2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 4500/2018]. 15. It was also submitted that the evidence tendered by the petitioner and his two other witnesses remained unrebutted and moreover, there was no rebuttal evidence by the State and therefore, the evidence of the petitioner, having remained unchallenged, ought to have been believed by the learned Tribunal. In support of the said submissions, reliance is placed on the case of State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (Dead) & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 561 and the case of Anjana Biswas @ Anjana Sarkar Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 7280/2021 decided on 28.09.2022. 16. It was also submitted that the reliance by the learned Tribunal on the case of Union of India v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, (1995) 3 SCC 17 , was misplaced because the said case related to service law, where the respondent therein had sought for correction of the date of his birth in the service record after thirty years. 17. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned opinion was not sustainable and therefore, liable to be interfered with. Submissions by the learned counsel for the FT matters: 18. The learned counsel for the FT and Border matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion. It was submitted that the petitioner had failed to make a complete disclosure about his parental and his own family in his written statement and therefore, the impugned opinion does not warrant any interference. Reasons and decision: 19. At the outset, it may be mentioned that in paragraph 3 of the impugned opinion, the learned Tribunal had recorded its observation that the petitioner had not disclosed basic material facts in his written statement, which were in his specific knowledge, like date of birth, age, names of his grandparents and grand-parental lineage. Reasons and decision: 19. At the outset, it may be mentioned that in paragraph 3 of the impugned opinion, the learned Tribunal had recorded its observation that the petitioner had not disclosed basic material facts in his written statement, which were in his specific knowledge, like date of birth, age, names of his grandparents and grand-parental lineage. It was also observed that it is a settled position that the party cannot traverse beyond pleadings and what is pleaded can only be proved and not something which is not pleaded. Perhaps, for the said reason, in this writ petition, the petitioner has withheld his written statement and evidence-on-affidavit filed by the petitioner as DW-1. 20. Therefore, the Court had to peruse the written statement as well as Evidence-on-affidavit of the petitioner as DW-1 from the Tribunal’s Record (hereinafter referred to as ‘TR’ for short). The essential statements made by the petitioner in his written statement have been stated in paragraph 3 and 4 above. The petitioner has vaguely stated that in the year 1984, he had purchased agricultural land at Salmora Tup Gaon (also spelt as Chalmara in some documents), Morongi Mouza, in the district of Golaghat, Assam and in the year 1993, he had also purchased residential land in the same village. The said two sale deeds dated 15.05.1984 and 22.07.1993 has been exhibited as Ext.4 and Ext.5, but the deed number is not mentioned in the written statement or in the evidence-on-affidavit. Be that as it may, the said two exhibited sale deeds are post 25.03.1971 documents. However, the said Salmora Tup Gaon is not the village where the petitioner was born and brought-up. 21. In his written statement and evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has stated that his name is Hazrat Ali @ Md. Harjat Ali @ Md. Hajarat Ali, which is one and same person. He had stated that his father is Md. Jamiruddin @ Jamiruddin @ Jamiratddin @ Jamiratdin @ Md. Janiratddin, which is one and same person. He had stated that his grandfather is Shobdul Sekh @ Shobdul, which is one and same person. However, the petitioner has not disclosed where his father and his grandfather had resided and when they died. The petitioner had disclosed the name of his grandmother as Jelekha Khatun, but to prove the existence of the petitioner’s grandfather and grandmother, no document has been exhibited. 22. However, the petitioner has not disclosed where his father and his grandfather had resided and when they died. The petitioner had disclosed the name of his grandmother as Jelekha Khatun, but to prove the existence of the petitioner’s grandfather and grandmother, no document has been exhibited. 22. In his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has made a statement to the effect that the name of Jamir Uddin, his projected father, son of Sobdul Sheikh and Sahera Khatun, the name of his projected mother had appeared in the voter list of 1965 of Village- Samdhadha. It has been stated that the name of village- Samdharais wrongly written as Samdhadha.However, as a single voter, the name Jamir Uddin, his projected father, son of Sobdul had appeared in the voter list of 1970 of Village- Samdhora. There is no statement in the written statement and/or any document to show as to what happened to the projected mother after the year 1965. Similarly, there is no statement in the written statement and/or any document to show as to what happened to the projected father after the year 1970. 23. The petitioner has projected that he and his family had shifted to Salmora Tup, for which he has exhibited the two sale deeds (Ext.4 and Ext.5) and voter list of 1997 (Ext.6), 2005 (Ext.7), 2015 (Ext.8). However, the names of no other family member appear in the exhibited voters list. The petitioner has also exhibited the Electoral Voter Identity Card, but the said document is not a proof of citizenship, which must be proved by cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. 24. In his written statement and evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner claims that he was born and brought-up in village- Samdhara, in Nagaon District. On 18.05.2018, when the petitioner had sworn his evidence-on- affidavit, his age was 58 years. Therefore, the petitioner was born sometime in the year 1960.As per his school certificate [Ext.9(1)], the petitioner was born on 01.10.1959.The petitioner has exhibited photocopy of another school certificate [Ext.9(i)], which is inadmissible in evidence because of unauthorized use of State Emblem therein, which the school and its Headmaster is not authorized to use. However, on a perusal of the evidence of Smt. RupalimSarma, DW-2, she had stated that the school register and the counterfoil of the school certificate were produced before the learned Tribunal. However, on a perusal of the evidence of Smt. RupalimSarma, DW-2, she had stated that the school register and the counterfoil of the school certificate were produced before the learned Tribunal. Although the TR contains a photocopy of the school admission register, but the same has not been exhibited by the petitioner and thus, not marked as an exhibit. 25. There appears to be an unnecessary controversy in the calculation of the age of the petitioner, based on entries made in the school certificate [Ext.9(i)]. The DW-3, namely, Prasanna Kumar Kalita, Retired Headmaster of Juria High Secondary School had stated that as per the said school certificate, the age of the petitioner was 9 years, 3 months as on 31.12.1968, therefore, he had written the date of birth as 01.10.1959. On the other hand, Smt. RupalimSarma, DW-2, who was the then serving Headmistress of the said school had stated that the date of birth was incorrect, it should have been 31.09.1959. The learned Tribunal had therefore, by relying on the evidence of DW-2, discarded the entries in the said school certificate. It appears that the learned Tribunal and the DW-2 have both failed to remember that September has 30 (thirty) days and therefore, the calculation of date, as made by DW-3 is correct. 26. Be that as it may, it is trite that belatedly issued school certificate can be accepted as evidence only if the school register is produced and proved. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 (Supp.) SCC 604 , where it has been held that date of birth recorded in school certificate or school register would have no evidentiary value unless the person who furnished the information regarding the date of birth or parents are examined; besides, the author of the certificate would have to prove the certificate on the basis of school register. 27. In the case of Rafiqul Islam v. Union of India , 2018 (1) GLT 703, a coordinate Division Bench of this Court had held that the Headmaster of the school, who had issued the certificate, did not testify before the Tribunal alongwith the admission register to prove the certificate and truthfulness of the contents thereof and accordingly, it was held that the certificate had no probative value. 28. 28. Therefore, the school certificate [Ext.9(A) and Ext.9(i)] is not an admissible evidence and therefore, the said exhibited documents fail to connect the petitioner to his projected father. 29. In his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has disclosed the name of his father as Jamiruddin. However, in the sale deeds [Ext.4 and Ext.5], the name of his father has been written as Md. Jamirat Ddin. Thus, the petitioner, for his convenience is changing the name of his father to match it with the exhibited documents, because it is not believable that a real son would call his father by using different alias. 30. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the Court is constrained to hold the petitioner has failed to show that the learned Tribunal had committed any perversity in appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. It would not be shown that the learned Tribunal had relied on any extraneous materials while rendering its opinion. 31. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of Sirajul Hoque (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not found to help the petitioner. As per the said decision, the discrepancies in the way the names of persons are spelt can be ignored only when the names of other family members remain the same. In this case, the certified copies of the voters list exhibited by the petitioner do not contain the names of any family member other than the projected father and thereafter, the petitioner and his wife. Power of Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction: 32. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC 733 : (2023) 0 Supreme (SC) 763 , has reiterated the principles on which a writ court can exercise the power to issue writ of certiorari. The relevant paragraph thereof is quoted below:- “17. In Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das and ors, reported in (2023) SCCOnline SC 996, wherein the Apex Court has expounded the principles on which a writ Court can exercise the writ of certiorari. The Apex Court in this Judgment after examining the precedents in this regard held that there are two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. The Apex Court in this Judgment after examining the precedents in this regard held that there are two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. The first cardinal principle is that when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It is not be issued on mere asking. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. The Apex Court held that so far as the errors of law are concerned, a writ of certiorari could be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A mere error of law is not sufficient to attract the writ of certiorari. It must be one which is manifest or patent on the face of the record. Mere formal or technical errors, even of law, are not sufficient, so as to attract a writ of certiorari. Coming to the facts on the present case, in view of the discussions above, we do not find any error of law or lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal while issuing the impugned order.” 33. Therefore, there was no necessity of the Court to examine and/or re-appreciate the evidence available before the Foreigners Tribunal. Yet as an exception, which is not the rule, the pleadings and evidence has been examined only because the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that citizenship is a valuable right. Therefore, there was no necessity of the Court to examine and/or re-appreciate the evidence available before the Foreigners Tribunal. Yet as an exception, which is not the rule, the pleadings and evidence has been examined only because the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that citizenship is a valuable right. Therefore, this exercise is not intended to be cited as a precedent for any other case. 34. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to pass the following: ORDER : 35. The challenge to the impugned opinion fails and resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the consequences of the impugned opinion dated 20.09.2022, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No. FTG 135/2011 [corresponding to SP’s Enquiry No. 19/2007], thereby holding the petitioner abovenamed as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, shall follow. 36. There shall be no order as to cost. 37. The Registry shall send back the Tribunal’s record along with a copy of this judgment and order, to be made a part of the record by the learned Tribunal for future reference.