JUDGMENT : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Md. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC, Ms. N. Kalita, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI, Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for FT Matters, Border matters and NRC. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Sahera Khatun, has assailed the opinion dated 11.09.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No.1 , Barpeta, in F.T. Case No. 76/2018, thereby declaring her to be a foreigner entering into Assam from the specified territory after 25.03.1971. 3) The proceeding against the petitioner was registered on a reference being made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta before the erstwhile I.M.(D.)T. However, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India , (2005) 5 SCC 665 , the said proceeding was transferred to the jurisdictional Foreigners Tribunal. 4) Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner has entered appearance and has filed her written statement, wherein it has been projected that she is the daughter of Abdul Sheikh @ Abdul Miya and Rup Bhanu Bidhawa. She was born and brought-up in village- Shakhowajhar NC. On attaining marriageable age, she had married Tota Miya of village Pajarbhanga. Her father had six daughters, namely, Noytan Nessa, Mallika Begum, Nabiran Nessa, Tara Bhanu Bibi, Sahera Khatun (herself) and Samiran Nessa. Her grandfather is Monuruddin and grandmother is Maharjan Bewa. Though it has been pleaded that her grandparents had four children, but she has disclosed the names of five persons, namely, Abdul Sheikh (her father), Sukur Ali, Saheb Ali, Khatema Nessa and Tarifan Nessa. 5) It was stated that the name of her parents, grandmother, uncles, Sukur Ali, Saheb Ali and one aunt, Tarifan Nessa were recorded in the NRC of 1951 of village- Shakhowajhar. The name of her father is recorded in the land revenue Receipt No. 6728 dated 06.04.1960 as the pattadar. The name of her parents, grandmother, uncles, Sukur Ali, Saheb Ali and aunts, Filjan Nessa and Sazera Khatun are recorded in voter list of 1966 and 1970 of Village- Shakhowarjhar NC under 52 No. Baghbar LAC. The name of her father is recorded in the land revenue Receipt No. 6728 dated 06.04.1960 as the pattadar. The name of her parents, grandmother, uncles, Sukur Ali, Saheb Ali and aunts, Filjan Nessa and Sazera Khatun are recorded in voter list of 1966 and 1970 of Village- Shakhowarjhar NC under 52 No. Baghbar LAC. It has been stated that the first name of her mother was recorded therein as Rubban instead of Rup Bhanu. 6) It was also stated that due to river erosion, her parents with her sisters had shifted to and settled at Satrakanar (Gobindapur Reserve) under 52 No. Baghbar LAC, where he died before 1989 and for the same reason, his uncle, Sukur Ali shifted to Sutir Par. The name of his mother is recorded in the voter list of 1989 and in the voter list of 1997, her mother’s age was wrongly recorded as 72 years instead of 58 years. Her mother had died 4 (four) years ago. The name of her uncle with aunt, cousin sister, Fuljan Nessa, cousin brother Fulchan Ali, cousin brother’s wife, Hamela Khatun and cousin brother, Lalchan Miya has been recorded in the voter list of 2010 of village- Sutir Par. Her cousin brother has been issued Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short). The name of the petitioner with her husband is recorded in the voter list of 1989, 1997 and 2010 of Village- Pajarbhanga, but in the voter list of 1989, her name has been recorded as Sahera Bhanu instead of Sahera Khatun. Her name has been parked ‘D’ in the voter list of 2011. The Gaonburah of Satrakanara village has issued a certificate and linked her with her father. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to be Indian citizen settled before 25.03.1971 and is not a foreigner. 7) In support of his defence, the petitioner had examined 2 witnesses, including herself (DW-1) and Fulchan Ali (DW-2), projected cousin brother of the petitioner. The Gaonburah of Satrakanara village has issued a certificate and linked her with her father. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to be Indian citizen settled before 25.03.1971 and is not a foreigner. 7) In support of his defence, the petitioner had examined 2 witnesses, including herself (DW-1) and Fulchan Ali (DW-2), projected cousin brother of the petitioner. The petitioner had exhibited the following documents, viz., land revenue receipt (Ext.1); certified copy of voters list of 1966 (Ext.2); certified copy of voters list of 1966 (Ext.3); certified copy of voters list of 1970 (Ext.4); certified copy of voters list of 1970 (Ext.5); certified copy of voters list of 1989 (Ext.6); certified copy of voters list of 1997 (Ext.7); certified copy of voters list of 1997, (Ext.8); certified copy of voters list of 2010 (Ext.9); certified copy of voters list of 2010 (Ext.10); EPIC (Ext.11); certified copy of voters list of 1989 (Ext.12); Gaonburah certificate (Ext.13). 8) Upon analyzing the evidence of the petitioner (DW-1) and of Fulchan Ali (DW-2), had observed that the DW-2, in his cross-examination, had failed to state the name of the mother of the petitioner, when the family of the petitioner had shifted to village- Sartakanara and thus, it was held that the evidence of DW-2 was not trustworthy and that the petitioner had failed to prove the linkage with her parents. Accordingly, the opinion was passed in the affirmative in favour of the reference and it was held that the petitioner was a foreigner of post 25.03.1971. 9) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the exhibited documents were not properly examined and due to minor discrepancies, the evidence of the petitioner and her cousin brother, who was examined as DW-2 was rejected. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the cases of (i) Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam , AIR 2024 SC 3551 , and (ii) Paran Uddin @ Paran Ali v. Union of India , 2017 (5) GLT 831. 10) In her cross-examination, the petitioner had stated that she had not seen her grandparents. She does not know in which year her father had cast his vote. Her father, Late Abdul Sheikh had two brothers, Sukur Ali and Saheb Ali. She cannot remember when her father had shifted from Shokhowarjhar to Satrakanara. She cannot remember, when her father had died. She does not know in which year her father had cast his vote. Her father, Late Abdul Sheikh had two brothers, Sukur Ali and Saheb Ali. She cannot remember when her father had shifted from Shokhowarjhar to Satrakanara. She cannot remember, when her father had died. Her mother died 5/7 years ago. She cannot remember in which year she had cast her vote. She cannot remember in which year she was declared ‘D’ voter. The DW-2, in his cross-examination had stated that he did not remember the name of mother of the petitioner. He does not know when her mother had cast her vote. He does not remember when the family of came to Satrakanara from Shokhowarjhar. He cannot remember when father of the petitioner had died. Her mother had died about 15 years ago. He does not know if the petitioner had cast her vote or not. He does not remember when he shifted to Satrakanara from Shokhowarjhar. He was about 8 years old that time. 11) As the issue is regarding citizenship, the exhibited documents have been examined to see if the opinion is vitiated by perversity. The land revenue receipt discloses that on behalf of Abdul Miya, land revenue was paid by Md. Sukura Miya, but their relationship with the petitioner has not been proved. Contrary to pleadings and evidence, the name of village mentioned in voter list of 1966 (Ext.2) is Makhuwarjhar NC and not Shakhowarjhar, as stated by the petitioner. Another voter list of 1966 (Ext.3) is of village Shakhowarjhar Nonke. The projected father of the petitioner and the projected uncle of the petitioner were not the residents of the same house number, as can be seen from the contents of the exhibited voter lists. Therefore, by conjointly referring to two separate sets of voter lists, it is being projected as if Abdul Sheikh and Sukur Ali are brothers. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner does not appear with her parents or grandparents. 12) Thus, the only link of the petitioner with her projected parents is by virtue of Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.13). The said document is inadmissible in evidence because of unauthorized use of State Emblem of Lion Pillar of Asoka. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner does not appear with her parents or grandparents. 12) Thus, the only link of the petitioner with her projected parents is by virtue of Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.13). The said document is inadmissible in evidence because of unauthorized use of State Emblem of Lion Pillar of Asoka. If one needs any authority on the point, the decision of this Court in the case of Afuja Begum @ Afruja Begum v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 7340/ 2016, decided on 19.04.2018, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that Gaonburah is not a person authorized to use State Emblem. Moreover, it has been held that use of State Emblem by an unauthorized user would make the document inadmissible in evidence. 13) It may also be mentioned that this Court in the case of Diluwara Khatun v. Union of India , 2019 (1) GLT 382, after discussing the various provisions of the applicable Acts and Rules in respect of use of State Emblem, has categorically held that any document or certificate issued by an authority using the State Emblem, who are otherwise not authorized to use the State Emblem under the Act and the Rules are inadmissible piece of evidence and therefore, no reliance can be placed on such document. We are bound to follow the said ratio in this case as the said Gaonbura’s Certificate (Ext.13) contains State Emblem printed on the document and there is nothing to show that he is authorized to use State Emblem. Moreover, the concerned Gaonburah, who is the author of Ext.13, was not examined to prove the document or its contents. 14) Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the petitioner has not been able to link herself with her projected father cannot be held to be perverse or vitiated in any manner. 15) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the LVO report was blank and thus, no investigation was conducted. In this regard, it may be mentioned that in this case, doubt was raised as to the citizenship of the petitioner by the Electoral Registration Officer for 47 Chenga Assembly Constituency after the Election Commission of India had ordered revision of electoral roll with reference to qualifying date of 01.01.1997. In this regard, it may be mentioned that in this case, doubt was raised as to the citizenship of the petitioner by the Electoral Registration Officer for 47 Chenga Assembly Constituency after the Election Commission of India had ordered revision of electoral roll with reference to qualifying date of 01.01.1997. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Barpeta under Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983/ Foreigners Act and Rules made thereunder. Apparently, during enquiry, no document was submitted. Accordingly, the matter was referred by the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta to the erstwhile I.M.(D.)T., Barpeta. As indicated hereinbefore, by virtue of the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), the proceeding was transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal. Therefore, as the matter was transferred by the Supreme Court of India, no further determination regarding making of reference can be gone into by this Court. 16) Therefore, in light of discussions above, this Court does not find that the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by any jurisdictional error or that there was any failure of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, as the Court is exercising supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal with the view of the Court. This is not a case where the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidence or that its finding is dehors the evidence on record. 17) Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 18) The Registry shall send back the Tribunal’s records along with a copy of this order so as to enable the said learned Tribunal to make it a part of the records for future reference.