JUDGMENT : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 6; Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent no.3; and Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India for respondent no.5. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Shajiran @ Saziran Bewa, has assailed the opinion dated 26.06.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal-5 , Barpeta, Assam, in Case No. F.T.(5 ) 42/2016, arising out of Reference IM(D)T Case No. 4287(A)/97, by which she was declared to be a foreigner who had entered Assam on or after 25.03.1971. 3) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the written statement filed by the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had denied the allegation that she was a foreigner and took all the defence relevant to establish that she was not a foreigner. 4) Moreover, it was submitted that the petitioner had examined herself as DW-1, and in her evidence-on-affidavit the petitioner had reiterated the statements made in her written statement. It was submitted that the petitioner had stated that she is a citizen of India, and born and brought up at village- Balagaon, under Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar, in the then district of Kamrup. Her father’s name is Nabur Uddin Sheikh and her mother’s name is Mahiran Nessa and their names appear in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 of village- Balagaon, 51 No. Jania LAC. She was married to Abdul Rasid, son of Late Abdul Hamid of village- Khelli, Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar, in the district of Barpeta, Assam and her name appeared for the first time along with her husband in the electoral roll of 1985 of village- Khelli under 44 No. Jania LAC. After 1985, she had shifted to village- Balagaon, under Mouza- Titapani, under P.S. Baghbar (presently Kalgachia), in the district of Barpeta and her name appeared in the electoral roll of 1989 with her husband at village- Balagaon, under 44 No. Jania LAC. Her name also appeared in the electoral roll of 1997 at village- Balagaon, under 44 No. Jania LAC, but marked as ‘D’. Her name also appeared in the electoral roll of 1997 at village- Balagaon, under 44 No. Jania LAC, but marked as ‘D’. A link certificate has been issued in her favour by the Secretary of the Tapeswara Gaon Panchayat in respect of her marriage, which is countersigned by the B.D.O. of Rupshi Development Block and the Gaonburah of village Balagaon and Khelli had issued two separate certificates in respect of her residential identity and marriage linkage. She had stated that her actual name is Shaziran Nessa, which is correctly recorded in all voters’ lists, but in the case record, her name is wrongly written as Shaziran Bewa and that both the names are of one person, i.e. petitioner. In support of her contention, she had exhibited the following documents:- i. Certified copy of voter list of 1966 (Ext.A) ii. Certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.B) iii. Certified copy of voter list of 1985 (Ext.C) iv. Certified copy of voter list of 1989 (Ext.D) v. Certificate by Gaonburah of Balagaon (Ext.E) vi. Certificate by Gaonburah of Khelli (Ext.F). 5) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in support of her defence, the petitioner had also examined Abdus Samad Ahmed, the Gaonburah of village- Balagaon as DW-2; and Hajarat Ali, her projected uncle as DW-3. 6) It was submitted that Abdus Samad Ahmed (DW-2), in his examination-in-chief, had stated that he was the Gaonburah of village- Balagaon since 1988 and he knew the petitioner well. The name of her father is Late Noboruddin Sheikh, who was a resident of Balagaon. The name of father of the Noboruddin Sheikh is Nendu Sheikh, who is not alive. Late Noboruddin Sheikh had seven sons and two daughters. The name of sons are Moksed Ali, Mohiruddin, Ramjan Ali, Hashmat Ali, Shajiran Nessa (second party, i.e. petitioner), and Somla Khatun. The two brothers of Late Noboruddin, namely, Hakim Uddin and Hajrat Ali are still alive. The second party of the case is married to Abdul Rashid of village- Khelli, but subsequently, she used to reside at village – Balagaon. The husband of the second party had died. It is a fact that he had issued a certificate (Ext.E) to the second party and Ext.E(1) was his signature. 7) In his evidence-on-affidavit, Hajarat Ali (DW-3) had stated that he was a citizen of India and born and brought up at village- Balagaon. The husband of the second party had died. It is a fact that he had issued a certificate (Ext.E) to the second party and Ext.E(1) was his signature. 7) In his evidence-on-affidavit, Hajarat Ali (DW-3) had stated that he was a citizen of India and born and brought up at village- Balagaon. His father’s name is Late Nedu Sheikh and his mother’s name is Mosuran Nessa and Late Nabur Uddin Sheikh, Late Kashem Ali Sheikh and Hakim Uddin were his brothers and they were citizens of India. Shaziran Nessa @ Shaziran Bewa is his niece (his elder brother’s daughter) and she was given on marriage with one Late Abdul Rashid, son of Late Abdul Hamid of village- Khelli. His name appeared in the electoral roll of 1966 and 1970 with his parents and hereinbefore named three brothers. He was a voter list of 51 No. Jania LAC from 1966 onward and now he was a voter of village- Balagaon, under 44 No. Jania LAC and his name also appeared in the voter list of 2016. 8) It was submitted that the learned Tribunal, on flimsy grounds, had rejected the evidence of the petitioner’s side by discarding the voter’s lists exhibited by the petitioner by not treating them as certified copy, though they were issued by the Electoral Registration Officer, Jania LAC. 9) In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the case of Sujab Ali (Md.) v. Union of India & Ors., 2021 (4) GLT 664, on the point that while rendering an opinion, the learned Tribunal was required to state in its verdict as to whether the documentary evidence was proved in terms of the Evidence Act, 1872 and as regards whether the documents were treated as public documents, the Tribunal was required to adhere to the provisions of Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, by citing paragraph 26 of the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 , it was submitted that after the petitioner had led evidence and proved her case, it was required that the State should give rebuttal evidence, which was not done in this case, which should be construed in favour of the petitioner. 10) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC had made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion. 10) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC had made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion. It was stated that though the petitioner had examined three witnesses, but she had not been able to link herself to Indian parents. It was submitted that the petitioner had examined her projected paternal uncle as DW-3, but there was no pleading in the written statement about the existence of any paternal uncles, aunts and about her own siblings and children. Moreover, no document was exhibited by the petitioner showing DW-3 as a voter together with the petitioner’s father. Thus, it was submitted that this application was liable to be dismissed. 11) Considered the submissions and also considered the cases cited at the Bar. Also perused the Tribunal’s record that was called for. 12) It may be stated that in the Tribunal’s record, the photocopy of Elector Photo Identity Card (EPIC for short) of Hajarat Ali is marked as Ext.G (proved in original) and the photocopy of electoral roll of 2016 (proved in original), containing the name of Hajarat Ali as voter is marked as Ext.H. However, the petitioner (DW-1), Abdus Samad Ahmed (DW-2) and Hajarat Ali (DW-3) had not exhibited the said Ext.G and Ext.H in the respective evidence- on-affidavit of DW-1 and DW-2 or in the examination-in-chief of DW-3. Nonetheless, the said Ext.G and Ext.H bear the signature of the learned Tribunal. 13) On examination of the Tribunal’s records it is seen that in her written statement and in her evidence-on-affidavit the petitioner, did not disclose about (i) the members of her grandfather’s family; (ii) her father’s family; and (iii) her own children. Therefore, the sudden appearance of DW-3 to adduce evidence in favour of the petitioner does not inspire confidence because the petitioner (DW-1) and Hajarat Ali (DW-3) did not exhibit any document to show that DW-3 was a voter either with his own parents or with the parents of the petitioner. No document was exhibited by the DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 to show that Hajarat Ali (DW-3) had resided in a common household with the parents of the petitioner. 14) On a careful examination of the records, it is seen that the petitioner (DW-1) was examined by the learned Tribunal on 06.06.2018 and Hajarat Ali (DW-3) was examined by the learned Tribunal on 11.05.2018. 14) On a careful examination of the records, it is seen that the petitioner (DW-1) was examined by the learned Tribunal on 06.06.2018 and Hajarat Ali (DW-3) was examined by the learned Tribunal on 11.05.2018. 15) In response to the learned Tribunal’s query, DW-1 had stated that her father had died about 20 years ago; her mother died three years of her father’s death; she has 7 (seven) brothers and 2 (two) sisters and she was second one; the name of her husband is Abdul Rashid, resident of village-Balagaon. 16) DW-3, in his examination by the learned Tribunal had stated that his mother’s name is Mosuran Nessa; he has a voter identity card to identify himself (Ext.G); he has four brothers, namely, (1) Nabur Uddin Sheikh, (2) Kasham Ali Sheikh, (3) Hakim Uddin, (4) Hajarat Ali (himself). Nabur Uddin Sheikh is the father of the petitioner; and he was a regular voter. 17) The DW-2, namely, Abdus Samad Ahmed, who is the Gaonburah of village Balagaon has stated in his evidence that he had been serving as a Gaonburah since 1988. He has stated that Shajiran Nessa, daughter of late Nabur Uddin Sheikh, was a resident of Balagaon. The father’s name of Nabur Uddin Sheikh is Nedu Sheikh. Both of them is no longer alive. Late Nabur Uddin Sheikh has 7 (seven) sons, namely, Makshed Ali, Mohiruddin, Ramjan Ali, Hasmat Ali, Asuruddin, Boseruddin, and Munser Ali, as well as 2 (two) daughters, namely, Shajiran Nessa and Chamela Khatun. He further stated that late Nabur Uddin Sheikh had 2 (two) living brothers, namely, Hakim Uddin and Hajarat Ali. It was also stated that Shajiran Nessa (opposite party) had married Abdul Rashid of Khelli village and thereafter, resided at Balagaon. Her husband had expired. He has further stated that Ext.E was the certificate issued by him and Ext.E(1) was his signature. 18) It may be mentioned herein that in the translated copy of examination-in-chief of DW-2, which is annexed to this writ petition as Annexure-2-(A), while it is mentioned that Late Nabur Uddin Sheikh i.e. father of the petitioner has 7 (seven) sons but only the names of 4 (four) sons are disclosed and the remaining 3 (three) are missing. However, upon perusal of the original record, the names of all the 7 (seven) sons are clearly mentioned. However, upon perusal of the original record, the names of all the 7 (seven) sons are clearly mentioned. 19) It may be stated that in his oral evidence, Abdus Samad Ahmed (DW-2), had referred to the name of Haiarat Ali as the brother of the father of the petitioner. However, it is too well settled that oral evidence is not sufficient to prove citizenship. If one needs any authority on the point, one may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Basiron Nessa v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 692, the certificate issued by the Gaonburah, stating that Basiron Nessa is the daughter of Late Abdul Barek and Rabia Khatun was exhibited as Ext.A. The Gaonburah had stated in his cross examination that he had issued the certificate after looking at the voters lists of 1966 and 1971. Under the said factual matrix, this Court had held that documentary evidence must be proved from record and not solely by oral testimony. In the case of Bijoy Das v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 4 GLR 599: 2018 (3) GLT 118, this Court had held that it is trite that mere filing of written statement and oral testimony in a proceeding under Foreigners Act, 1946 would not be enough. The fact-in-issue would have to be proved by the proceedee by adducing documentary evidence which are admissible and relevant. 20) Therefore, merely by oral evidence, it cannot be held that Hajarat Ali (DW-3) had been able to prove that the petitioner was the daughter of his own brother. In her written statement, the petitioner had not stated about the existence of Hajarat Ali as brother of the father of the petitioner and/or as her paternal uncle. In the case of Rashminara Begum v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (4) GLT 346 and Saru Sheikh v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 4 GLR 295, this Court had held that material facts pleaded would have to be proved by adducing cogent and admissible evidence. In the case of Ayesha Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 3 GLR 820 and Jehirul Islam v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 5 GLR 670, this Court had held that failure to disclose material facts would lead to an adverse presumption. In the case of Ayesha Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 3 GLR 820 and Jehirul Islam v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 5 GLR 670, this Court had held that failure to disclose material facts would lead to an adverse presumption. In Momin Ali v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (2) GLT 1076, this Court had held that variance between pleadings and proof was not permissible. The aforesaid cases of Rashminara Begum (supra), Saru Sheikh (supra), Ayesha Khatun (supra), Jehirul Islam (supra) and Momin Ali (supra), have not been referred to and distinguished in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 21) Thus, the statement of DW-3, who claimed to be the paternal uncle of the petitioner, cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documents showing relationship, either to the projected grandfather, projected father or the petitioner. DW-3 had failed to exhibit any voter list though at the time of filing his evidence-on-affidavit, he was 77 years of age. Although a voter list of 2016 was marked as Ext.H, but that document was not mentioned in the evidence- on-affidavit of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 and thus, not to speak of exhibiting the said voter list of 2016, even the entries in Ext.H had not been proved. 22) The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the case of Sujab Ali (Md.) (supra). The said case is not found to help the petitioner. In paragraph 15 of the said case, reference is made to the case of Chandu Lal Agarwala v. Khalilar Rahman, ILR (1942) 2 Cal 299, was cited with approval. The said paragraph is quoted below:- “It is only ‘opinion as expressed by conduct’ which is made relevant. This is how the conduct comes in. The offered item of evidence is ‘the conduct’, but what is made admissible in evidence is ‘the opinion’, the opinion as expressed by such conduct. The offered item of evidence thus only moves the court to an intermediate decision : its immediate effect is only to move the court to see if this conduct establishes any ‘opinion’ of the person, whose conduct is in evidence, as to the relationship in question. The offered item of evidence thus only moves the court to an intermediate decision : its immediate effect is only to move the court to see if this conduct establishes any ‘opinion’ of the person, whose conduct is in evidence, as to the relationship in question. In order to enable the court to infer ‘the opinion’, the conduct must be of a tenor which cannot well be supposed to have been willed without the inner existence of the ‘opinion’. When the conduct is of such a tenor, the court only gets to a relevant piece of evidence, namely, the opinion of a person. It still remains for the court to weigh such evidence and come to its own opinion as to the factum probandum— as to the relationship in question.” 23) Therefore, in a case where citizenship of a proceedee is doubted, not only the proceedee has to made all relevant disclosure in the written statement and then prove the same by cogent and admissible evidence, but it must be kept in mind that non-disclosure of relevant facts will carry an adverse inference. 24) In this case, the petitioner had proved the following, viz., (i) certified copy of voter list of 1966 (Ext.A); (ii) certified copy of voter list of 1970 (Ext.B); (iii) certified copy of voter list of 1985 (Ext.C); (iv) certified copy of voter list of 1989 (Ext.D). Out of these four exhibits, the names of the projected parents appeared in the voter’s lists of 1966 (Ext.A) and 1970 (Ext.B), but the name of the petitioner did not appear in the said Ext.A and Ext.B. The name of the petitioner appeared in Ext.C and Ext.D, but not with her parental family but with her husband. Therefore, merely by producing voters list, relationship with the voter as father and/or mother of the petitioner cannot be proved. There is no Act, Rules or Notification which debars a third party from allying and obtaining certified copy of voter list. In other words, there is also no Act, Rules or Notification which requires the certified copy of voter’s list to be given only to the concerned voter and no one else. Thus, from the documentary evidence of the petitioner (DW-1) and Hajarat Ali (DW-3), the voter’s lists (Ext.A to Ext.D) does not prove the link of the petitioner with Nobur Uddin Sheikh, projected father of the petitioner. Thus, from the documentary evidence of the petitioner (DW-1) and Hajarat Ali (DW-3), the voter’s lists (Ext.A to Ext.D) does not prove the link of the petitioner with Nobur Uddin Sheikh, projected father of the petitioner. 25) The Court is inclined to hold that merely by referring to the voter list of 1966 (Ext.A) and voter list of 1970 (Ext.B), the petitioner cannot prove her citizenship by claiming that the voters in Ext.A and Ext.B were her father/ parents. This Court, in the case of Ajij Miya @ Md. Aziz Mia, 2023 (4) GLT 246, has held as under:- “14. We are constrained to observe that a mere claim by a suspected person by referring to a voter’s list claiming a person therein to be his father is not a conclusive proof and that by doing so, the person has discharged the burden that he is not a foreigner. This is because there is also a further requirement to prove that the person who is reflected in the voter’s list relied upon is actually the father of the person who makes the claim the claim will have to be substantiated with further material/ materials acceptable in law. 26) Thus, the only possible connect of the petitioner with her projected parents is the (a) certificate by Gaonburah of Balagaon (Ext.E), and (b) Certificate by Gaonburah of Khelli (Ext.F). One Abdus Samad Ahmed, who was the author of Ext.E was examined by the petitioner as DW-2. However, the author of certificate (Ext.F) was not examined to prove the said document. Be that as it may, both the said exhibited documents i.e. Ext.E and Ext.F contain State Emblem of Lion Pillar of Asoka, which the Gaonburah is not authorized to use and therefore, the said Ext.E and F is rendered inadmissible in evidence. If one needs any authority on the point, the decision of this Court in the case of Sajeda Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 696, and Diluwara Khatun Vs. Union of India, (2019) 1 GLT 382, may be referred to. In the said two decisions, this Court had held that Gaonburah’s certificate contains State Emblem, which he is not authorized to use under Rule 10(2) of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of use) Rules, 2007 framed under State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. Union of India, (2019) 1 GLT 382, may be referred to. In the said two decisions, this Court had held that Gaonburah’s certificate contains State Emblem, which he is not authorized to use under Rule 10(2) of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of use) Rules, 2007 framed under State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. Thus, such unauthorized use of State Emblem has rendered the two certificates, viz., Ext.E and Ext.F wholly inadmissible in evidence. 27) The DW-3, in response to the learned Tribunal’s query, had stated that he had a voter identity card (Ext.G). This Court in the case of Md. Babul Islam v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 3547/2016, decided on 09.05.2018, has held that EPIC is not a valid piece of evidence in the absence of supporting evidence. In any event, this is a post reference document and moreover, the DW-3 has not been able to link himself with the petitioner or her projected father. 28) Therefore, on all counts, the petitioner has failed to show any error or perversity in the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal. 29) Thus, the Court does not find any fault with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that there are no documents to link the petitioner with his grand-parents. 30) 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 de hors the evidence on record. 31) Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 32) The Registry shall return back Tribunal’s records along with a copy of this order so as to enable the learned Tribunal to make it a part of the records of the learned Tribunal for future reference.