JUDGMENT : Rajesh Mazumdar, J. Heard Mr S A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms K Phukan, learned CGC; Mr H Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr A I Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI; Ms A Verma, learned Standing Counsel, FT; Mr G Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NRC; and Mr P Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. 2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner, assailing the opinion rendered by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Barpeta-11th , on 01.12.2022, in Case No. (Bpt/11th ) FT 1128/2017. 3. The petitioner who was the proceedee before the learned Tribunal, had received notice from the learned Tribunal that he was suspected to be a foreigner of the post-25.03.1971 stream and he filed his written statement on 24.12.2019. The petitioner, thereafter, filed his evidence as DW-1 on 11.04.2022. Another witness, namely, Ali Hussain, filed his evidence on 02.08.2022. 9 (nine) documents were exhibited on behalf of the petitioner to support his contention that he was a citizen of India. By the opinion dated 01.12.2022, which is impugned in this writ petition, the learned Tribunal had held that the petitioner could not adduce evidence to show that his projected father continued to reside in the State of Assam after 1970 and further, held that in the absence of any document to prove the linkage of the petitioner with his projected father, the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof that he was a citizen of India. The learned Tribunal, thereafter, rendered an opinion that the petitioner had failed to prove that he did not enter Assam after the cut-off date of 25.03.1971, and, therefore, the reference was answered in the affirmative and against the petitioner. 4. Mr S A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had adduced evidence to show that his projected father Kurpan Ali Miya, son of Usumuddin Miya was a voter in the years 1966 and 1970. The learned counsel further submitted that the name of the petitioner, namely, Monowar Hussain, son of Kurpan, appeared as a voter along with his projected father, namely, Kurpan Ali, son of Oshi, in the electoral roll of the year 1985. The learned counsel further submitted that the name of the petitioner, namely, Monowar Hussain, son of Kurpan, appeared as a voter along with his projected father, namely, Kurpan Ali, son of Oshi, in the electoral roll of the year 1985. Similarly, the name of the petitioner as Monowar Hussain again appeared in the electoral roll of 1989, along with his projected father, Korban Ali, son of Ochumuddin Sheikh. 5. He further submits that since the petitioner was classified as a D-Voter in the year 1997, his name did not appear in the electoral roll of 1997 and 2010, but the name of his mother and brothers appeared in the electoral roll of 1997 and 2010. The learned counsel further submitted that the projected father’s name was also recorded in the chitha of the land covered by Dag No. 95/131 of Village-Haldia under Rupshi Mouza, in the year 1958-59. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner as Monir was mutated in place of his projected father in the land covered by Patta No. 25 of Village-Haldia, Mouza-Rupshi, Barpeta. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner also had other land recorded in his name, as would be evident from Annexure-I to the writ petition, which was also Exhibit-9 before the Tribunal, which land was inherited from his projected father. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the projected father and the projected mother of the petitioner were found to have been recorded as voters in the electoral rolls of 1966, 1970 and 1985 respectively, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have disregarded the linkage, sought to be proved by the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that minor differences in the name of projected father and projected grandfather in different documents which were exhibited, could not have the impact of nullifying cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned opinion deserves the interference of this Court to the extent of being set aside and the petitioner would be entitled to be declared as an Indian citizen. 6. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned opinion deserves the interference of this Court to the extent of being set aside and the petitioner would be entitled to be declared as an Indian citizen. 6. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Sirajul Hoque –Vs- State of Assam ; reported in (2019) 5 SCC 534 , to impress his argument that minor discrepancies in the names of the voters appearing in the voters’ lists or other documents deserve to be ignored and cannot form the basis to disbelieve the projection made by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel has then relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Haider Ali –Vs- Union of India ; reported in 2021 (3) GLT 85, to submit that the standard of proof in discharge of the onus by a proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners’ Act is preponderance of probability. Thus, he submits that minor inconsistencies here and there would not warrant rejection of his claim. He further submitted that non-production of some intervening voters’ lists could not have the effect of negating the effects of the other voters’ lists which have been proved and not rebutted by the State. He submitted that the standard of proof in a proceeding under the Tribunal is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond all reasonable doubt. If the petitioner has been able to prove that the names of the petitioner’s father and grandfather were shown in relevant electoral rolls and if the petitioner is able to show his linkage with them on the strength of voters’ lists after 1971, the Tribunal cannot reject the claim of the petitioner, merely because some documentary evidence were not produced. 8. Per contra, Ms A Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NRC and the FT matters, has submitted that the learned Tribunal has duly applied its mind to each and every aspect of the matter, and, therefore, the opinion rendered does not require any interference. The learned counsel has submitted that each of the exhibits in the proceeding has been duly considered and discussed. The learned counsel has submitted that each of the exhibits in the proceeding has been duly considered and discussed. The learned counsel submits that there is no error in the finding of the learned Tribunal that although the name of the projected father of the petitioner appeared in the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, his name did not appear for another 15 years, till 1985. He submits that the learned Tribunal was correct in holding that the petitioner’s father did not reside in Assam, after 1970 for about 15 years, and, therefore, he did not qualify to be a Citizen of India, under Section 6 –A (ii) of the CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1955. The learned counsel has supported the finding of the Tribunal that the Exhibit Nos. 4, 5 and 6, namely, the Voters’ List of 1989, 1997 and 2010, respectively, are post-1971 documents, and, therefore, they cannot be treated to be testimonials of citizenship of the respective registered voters. He has referred to the evidence laid by the witnesses, namely, DW-1 and DW-2, to submit that neither of the two witnesses were reliable, and, therefore, he submits that their evidence was rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal. 9. The rival contentions advanced have been duly considered and the records, including the original records of the Tribunal have been carefully examined. 10. A perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner on 24.12.2019, reveals that the petitioner has stated that he was born on 01.01.1964 at the then village of Haldia, presently, Village Haldhiagaon, under the then Police Station-Sorbhog, present Police Station-Kalgachia, in the district of Barpeta, Assam. The petitioner has, thereafter, explained what he projected to be minor variations in the names of his projected grandfather and his projected father as well as his projected mother. 11. It is noticed that the petitioner did not disclose the date of demise of either of his parents in the written statement. It is also noticed that the petitioner referred to himself as Manir @ Manir Ali at Paragraph-4 of the written statement while in the verification and in the affidavit supporting the written statement, he referred to himself only as Manir. It is also noticed that the petitioner referred to himself as Manir @ Manir Ali at Paragraph-4 of the written statement while in the verification and in the affidavit supporting the written statement, he referred to himself only as Manir. The petitioner thereafter, as stated in the writ petition, allegedly filed an additional written statement on 10.01.2022, wherein he referred to himself as Manir @ Manir Ali @ Monowar Hussain in the body of the written statement, but in the verification he referred to himself as Manir and in the affidavit supporting the written statement he used the aliases of Manir Ali and Monowar Hussain. We find that the inconsistencies in the description of the petitioner in different documents relied upon by him are not minor, relating to spelling errors or typographical errors, but the very name of the petitioner has kept changing. We are of the view that the reliance of the petitioner on the case of Sirajul Haque does not aid the petitioner in any manner. 12. This Court is conscious of the limitations which the powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised while adjudicating an opinion rendered by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, which is a quasi judicial authority. The petitioner has not asserted any flaw in the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal while adjudicating the reference in issue. The petitioner has also not made any challenge to the impugned opinion on the ground that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice or that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending his claim to citizenship. The main thrust of the petitioner in the writ petition is with regard to the appraisal of the evidence tendered by him in support of his claim of citizenship. 13. In order to ensure that the petitioner does not suffer any prejudice due to non-consideration of relevant material or due to undue reliance placed on irrelevant material, we have also perused the different documents on which the petitioner placed reliance. We have noticed that the reference had been initiated against one Manir, son of Korban, and in the initial notice, there was no reference to any alias, namely, Monowar Hussain. We have noticed that the reference had been initiated against one Manir, son of Korban, and in the initial notice, there was no reference to any alias, namely, Monowar Hussain. It is a matter of record that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that Kurpan Ali Miya appearing in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970, had continued to reside within the territory of India between 1970 and 1985. In the absence of any evidence, we do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal that there is no evidence that the projected father of the petitioner resided continuously in India after 1970. The name of Manir @ Manir Ali does not appear in the electoral roll of 1985. The petitioner has not explained as to under what circumstances, his name was recorded as Manir in Exhibit- 8, namely the land records, when his name allegedly appeared as Monowar Hussain in the electoral rolls of 1985. In his cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he did not know the date or year of his birth. The Exhibit Nos. 4, 5 and 6 before the learned Tribunal are indeed documents of the post-1971 period. 14. We have noticed that the petitioner has annexed an “additional written statement” his writ petition claiming that the same was filed before the learned Tribunal on 10.01.2022. On perusal of the records of the Tribunal, we find that there was no appearance either by the petitioner or by his counsel before the learned Tribunal on 10.01.2022. The Tribunal has recorded such absence in the corresponding order passed on 10.01.2022. The records of the Tribunal do not contain any such additional written statement as claimed by the petitioner. We are constrained to note that the aforesaid statement of filing of such an additional written statement is made at paragraph-19 of the writ petition, which has been sworn to be true to the information of the petitioner being matters of record. In the absence of any record to show that the additional statement was filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner has apparently made a false statement before this Court on oath, for which we record our disapproval. 15. In the absence of any record to show that the additional statement was filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner has apparently made a false statement before this Court on oath, for which we record our disapproval. 15. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or error in the opinion rendered by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Barpeta-11th, on 01.12.2022, in Case No.(Bpt/11th ) FT 1128/2017 and we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequences of the dismissal will follow. 16. The trial Court records be returned forthwith to the concerned Tribunal along with a copy of this order, to be kept as a part of the record of the Tribunal. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. No cost(s).