JUDGMENT : Shamima Jahan, J. Heard Mr. A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Union of India; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI, Mr P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, and Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the opinion dated 22.02.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri, in BNGN/FT-2/APR/Case No. 251/216, corresponding to Ref. No. BNGN IM(D)T Case No. 1798/03, whereby the petitioner was declared a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream. FACTS 3. The petitioner stated that she belongs to a very poor family and that she was around 1972 and was brought up at Village-Balagaon under Baghbor Police Station in the district of erstwhile Kamrup, now Barpeta, Assam. The petitioner’s father’s name is Hazrat Ali @ Hazrat Mandal and mother’s name is Sakina Khatun and that the grandfather of the petitioner was Late Darog Ali. She further stated that she had three brothers and four sisters including her, names of which she has mentioned in the petition. The petitioner got married with one Minhaz Ali, son of Abdus Samad under Srijangram Revenue Circle, Bongaigaon. She, thereafter stated that there was no question of her or her family members being foreigner, but the Police committed a mistake and by randomly, without collecting proper information, made the reference before the learned Tribunal, and that no enquiry was made regarding her nationality and further that, the Police never visited her parents’ house or her husband’s house at any point of time. 4. The petitioner, to show her nationality, placed the voters’ list of 1966, 1970, where her parents’ names were included in the said list with House No. 108, for 51 Jania LAC. She, thereafter, stated that her father shifted his residence from Village- Balagaon to Village-Madrassapara, in the district of Bongaigaon for better livelihood. She then stated that the names of father, mother and brothers appeared in the voters’ list of 2010 at Village- Madrassapara, for 34 North Abhayapuri LAC. To further establish her citizenship, she relied on the Elector Photo Identity Card, issued to her father. 5. She then stated that the names of father, mother and brothers appeared in the voters’ list of 2010 at Village- Madrassapara, for 34 North Abhayapuri LAC. To further establish her citizenship, she relied on the Elector Photo Identity Card, issued to her father. 5. The petitioner stated that her name appeared in the first time, along with her husband in the voters’ list of 1989 and also in subsequent voters’ list of 1997, 2010, and 2016, under 34 North Abhayapuri LAC. She had also relied on the Elector Photo Identity Card, issued by the Election Commission of India, as well as the Pan Card issued by the Income Tax Department, Government of India, to the petitioner. She had also stated that her father, Hazrat Ali executed a Gift Deed, on 26.09.2016, before the Sub-Registrar, Abhayapuri, in her favour. 6. As stated above, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Bongaigaon, made a reference to the Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 2, Abhayapuri, Assam, and the said Tribunal issued notice dated 23.06.2016 to the petitioner and the petitioner on receipt thereof, entered appearance and submitted her written statement. In the written statement submitted on 29.09.2016, the petitioner stated, inter alia, that the notice served upon the petitioner did not disclose any ground as to why the petitioner was suspected to be a foreigner. She stated that her parents were included in the voters’ list of 1966 as well as 1970, at Village-Balagaon, under 51 Jania LAC and that her parents shifted their residence from Balagaon to Madrassapara. She, thereafter, stated that on attaining her majority, she married one Minhaz Ali and that her name was recorded in the voters’ list of 1989, along with her husband. She also stated that subsequently, in 1997, 2010, 2016, her name was recorded in the voters’ list of the said years along with her husband. Thereafter, she stated that her father’s name is Hazrat Ali Mandal @ Hazrat Ali and that her father had gifted a plot of land with Patta No. 244, Dag No. 193, by registered Gift Deed, vide Gift Deed No. Book No. 1/2050/2016. She also stated that in the year 1990, her husband separated from the family and shifted his residence from Goalpara Part-II to Goalpara Part-IV, and that her name in the voters’ list of 1997, and afterwards was recorded at Goalpara Part-IV. She also stated that in the year 1990, her husband separated from the family and shifted his residence from Goalpara Part-II to Goalpara Part-IV, and that her name in the voters’ list of 1997, and afterwards was recorded at Goalpara Part-IV. She then stated that the name of her father is somewhere written as Hazrat Ali Mandal and somewhere, Hazrat Ali and that both the names belongs to one and the same person. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined as DW No. 1, and in her examination-in-chief, she stated similar statements as she had stated in her written statement and further stated that her name in the voters’ list of 2016, was written as Omela Khatun, whereas in the earlier voters’ list, her name was recorded as Amela Khatun and she stated that both the names are hers and it relates to one and the same person. This statement was submitted on 10.01.2017. 8. Thereafter, her father, Hazrat Ali deposed as DW-2, and he submitted his evidence-on-affidavit on 02.03.2017 by stating, inter alia, that he and his wife’s names were recorded in the voters’ list of 1966 and 1970, and then again in the year 2010. He stated that his daughter, on attaining majority, married one Minhaz Ali, and that her name was recorded in the voters’ list of 1999, along with her husband. He also stated about the discrepancy in the name of his daughter, appearing in the voters’ list. He then stated that he gifted a plot of land measuring 2 Katha 10 Lechas of Village-Harirchar, Part-I, under Srijangram Circle, vide Patta No. 244, Dag No. 193, by a registered deed being Gift Deed No. 2050, dated 26.09.2016. He then stated that his name was somewhere written as Hazrat Ali Mondal and somewhere as Hazrat Ali and that Mondal is the title of his dynasty, which is somewhere written and somewhere not. This witness exhibited the certified copy of voters’ list of 2010 as Exhibit-A and voter identity card as Exhibit-B. 10. Apart from the said documents submitted by the father of the petitioner, exhibited by Court, the petitioner had submitted the following documents which were exhibited by the Court to substantiate her case: i) Exhibit-1, certified copy of the voters’ list of 1966 ii) Exhibit-2, certified copy voters’ list of 1970. Apart from the said documents submitted by the father of the petitioner, exhibited by Court, the petitioner had submitted the following documents which were exhibited by the Court to substantiate her case: i) Exhibit-1, certified copy of the voters’ list of 1966 ii) Exhibit-2, certified copy voters’ list of 1970. iii) Exhibit-3, certified copy of voters’ list of 1989 iv) Exhibit-4, certified copy of voters’ list of 1997. v) Exhibit-5, certified copy voters’ list of 2016. vi) Exhibit-6, voter identity card issued to the petitoiner. vii) Exhibit-7, original Gift Deed. viii) Exhibit-8, PAN Card issued to the petitioner. 11. The learned Tribunal considered the said documents along with the evidence of 22.02.2019, had answered the reference in the affirmative, i.e, by declaring the petitioner as foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream, mainly on the following grounds: i) Exhibit-6, which is the registered Gift Deed, was not proved according to law. ii) Exhibit-7, the photocopy of the voter ID card is not admissible in evidence. iii) The documents placed by DW-2, was not believed since the petitioner stated before the Tribunal that she is aware of the names of the villages when her projected father’s name is recorded in 1966 and 1970. On these grounds, the learned Tribunal declared the petitioner as a foreigner and the same is challenged in the instant petition. SUBMISSIONS: 12. Mr A M Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal did not discuss the evidence of DW-2, who was further not cross-examined by the State. He further submitted that the father of the petitioner had executed a Gift Deed in favour of the petitioner and the original of the said gift deed was produced before the Tribunal to establish the link of the petitioner with her father and that respondents have no raised any objection to the same. He also stated that the father of the petitioner writes the Surname of the dynasty with his name and that sometimes, it is left out in few documents, but the name of the petitioner’s father appearing as Hazrat Ali Mandal and Hazrat Ali is one and the same person. He also submitted that the names of the father and mother of the petitioner appeared in the Voters’ List of 1966 and 1970, and that after the marriage of the petitioner with her husband, her name was reflected in the voters’ list with her husband. He also submitted that the names of the father and mother of the petitioner appeared in the Voters’ List of 1966 and 1970, and that after the marriage of the petitioner with her husband, her name was reflected in the voters’ list with her husband. He also stated that the petitioner illiterate and as such, she did not mention the names of her relatives in her written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his argument to the effect that there being no discussion of defence witness No. 2, the case is required to be remanded. To substantiate his argument, he relied on a judgment passed by this Court in Jamila Khatun -Vs- The Union of India , in WP(C) No. 8243 of 2018, by which this Court had held that the learned Tribunal, having failed to discuss evidence of few defence witnesses, and to take into account, the exhibits, had rendered the impugned opinion, unsustainable on facts and in law. 13. On the other hand, Mr G Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for FT matters submitted that the petitioner had not written about the Gift Deed executed by her father in her favour in the written statement submitted on 29.09.2016. However, the same is not borne by records, inasmuch, as in Paragraph No. 14 of the written statement, the petitioner had mentioned about the said Gift Deed. 14. The learned counsel for the FT matters had further stated that the petitioner in her written statement had not mentioned about her brothers and sisters together with their names, which raises doubt as to the family of the petitioner. He, thereafter, placed reliance on a Judgment delivered by this Court in Rashminara Begum -Vs- Union of India , reported in 2017 (4) GLT 346, by which this Court had held that the proceedee should disclose all the materials in the written statement and that the case of the proceedee cannot traverse beyond pleadings. On the argument that the learned Tribunal had not considered the oral evidence of DW-2, the learned counsel submits that the same will not have any effect on the case, inasmuch, as oral evidence without corroborative materials, has no value. On the argument that the learned Tribunal had not considered the oral evidence of DW-2, the learned counsel submits that the same will not have any effect on the case, inasmuch, as oral evidence without corroborative materials, has no value. To bring home the said point, he relied on two judgments which are as follows: i) Nur Begum -Vs- Union of India ; reported in 2020 (3) GLT 347, wherein this Court by judgment and order dated 18.02.2020, had held that the statement of the mother of the petitioner cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documents, showing her relationship either to the projected father, further or to the petitioner. ii) The judgment delivered by this Court in Asiya Khatoon -Vs- Union of India ; in WP(C) No. 4020 of 2017, on 21.11.2019, wherein it was similarly held that the deposition of the father of the petitioner cannot be relied upon in absence of any documents, showing his relationship to the petitioner. These were the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 15. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of DW No. 2, i.e., father of the petitioner was not considered at all, by the Tribunal, this Court gives the following findings:- i) In the order-sheet maintained by the Tribunal, it is noticed that on 29.09.2016, the petitioner had filed her written statement and document and the case was fixed on 18.10.2016, for examination of documents. However, the examination of documents were done on 06.12.2016, and the case was fixed on 27.12.2016, for evidence on affidavit. ii) The said order sheet shows that on 10.01.2017, the petitioner had submitted evidence-on-affidavit and the case was fixed on 02.03.2017, for evidence of DW-2, and that on the said day, i.e., on 02.03.2017, evidence-on-affidavit of DW-2, i.e., father of the petitioner was submitted and the case was fixed on 03.05.2017, for cross-examination of DW-2. Thereafter, on 03.05.2017, both the petitioner and her father were absent and the case was fixed on 15.06.2017, for cross-examination of DW-2. Thereafter, on 15.06.2017 too, DW- 2 was absent with a prayer for adjournment, but no supporting documents were submitted along with the adjournment petition. As such, the learned Tribunal rejected the petition and the evidence of DW-2 was closed and the evidence-on- affidavit submitted by DW-2, was expunged. Thereafter, on 15.06.2017 too, DW- 2 was absent with a prayer for adjournment, but no supporting documents were submitted along with the adjournment petition. As such, the learned Tribunal rejected the petition and the evidence of DW-2 was closed and the evidence-on- affidavit submitted by DW-2, was expunged. iii) Thereafter, the learned Tribunal heard the argument and passed the impugned order. 16. It is, as such, seen from the said orders passed by the learned Tribunal that the evidence of the defence witness No. 2 was done away with, i.e., expunged for his non-appearance and accordingly, there was no question for the Tribunal to examine or discuss the said evidence while passing the impugned order. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel has, therefore, no limbs to stand on, and the same is rejected by this Court. 17. With regard to the voters’ list of 1966 and 1970, wherein the names of the projected father and mother of the petitioner had appeared, the same would not again help the petitioner in her cause. First, the names of the projected father and mother were solely shown in the said list and the name of the projected father was written as Hazrat Ali Mandal. In order to establish the link with her father, the petitioner has to submit a list, wherein her name appears with her father and that too, without any doubtful element. It is a settled position of law that to prove the linkage under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946, an individual must establish a direct bloodline connection to an Indian ancestor, whose name appears in documents prior to 25th of March, 1971, and further under Section 9, the burden of proving the same entirely rests on the proceedee. 18. The next voters’ list that was exhibited by the petitioner was the voters’ list of 2010, and it is alleged by the petitioner that in the said list, the names of her brothers were recorded along with her projected father and mother, but again, the petitioner had failed to mention her brothers’ names in the written statement. As such, it cannot be discerned with all surety that the names recorded in the voters’ list of 2010 claimed as brothers are the actual brothers of the petitioners. As such, it cannot be discerned with all surety that the names recorded in the voters’ list of 2010 claimed as brothers are the actual brothers of the petitioners. Although the house number of projected father and mother and sons of Hazarat Ali are same, but the name of the projected father of the petitioner is different, i.e., Hazarat Ali. Further, the surname of the dynasty is also not written with the father’s name, i.e., Mandal. As such, there is doubt with regard to the fact that the voters mentioned in the voters’ list of 2010 are projected parents and brothers of the petitioner. 19. The petitioner had further relied on the voter ID card, issued by the Election Commission of India, as well as the Pan Card issued by the Income Tax Department. However, this Court in the case of Md. Babul Islam -Vs- Union of India & Others [WP(C) No. 3547/2016, decided on 09.05.2018]; had held that EPIC and Pan Card are not a valid piece of evidence, moreso, when they are post reference documents. In this case, the Tribunal’s records reveal that the Superintendent of Police (Border), Bongaigaon, had made a reference before the then Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Bongaigaon, vide Memo No. BNGN/B/IM(D) T/37/2003/6877 dated 06.12.2023. It is stated that having documents, such as Aadhar Card, Pan Card, or Voter ID Card, did not by itself make someone a citizen of India, as these documents are meant for identification or availing services. It is further stated that they cannot override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Act. As such, the said documents have no evidentiary value. 20. The subsequent voters’ list relied on by the petitioner, i.e., voters’ list of 1989, 1997, 2010, 2016, do not have the capacity of establishing the link of the petitioner to her projected father, inasmuch, as in those voters’ lists, the name of the petitioner appeared with her husband. As such, the requirement that the name of the proceedee has to appear with her ancestor, who was an Indian before 25.03.1971, is not meted out in this case, and, therefore, the said voters’ list cannot be useful to the petitioner. 21. As such, the requirement that the name of the proceedee has to appear with her ancestor, who was an Indian before 25.03.1971, is not meted out in this case, and, therefore, the said voters’ list cannot be useful to the petitioner. 21. One more link of the petitioner with her father was sought to be established by virtue of the Gift Deed executed by the projected father in favour of the petitioner vide Gift Deed No. Book No. 1/2050/2016. However, on a bare perusal of the Gift Deed makes it clear that the projected father of the petitioner was named as Md. Hazarat Ali. In the voters’ list of 1966 and 1970, the name of the projected father was written as Hazarat Ali Mandal and it was stated by the petitioner that Mandal is the surname reflecting the dynasty of the petitioner’s father. Further, in the voters’ list of 2010, the projected father of the petitioner was written as Hazarat Ali, and as stated above, the said voters’ list raises doubt with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner is the daughter of said Hazarat Ali. In the Gift Deed, the name written for the projected father of the petitioner, is Hazarat Ali, which is again to the name reflected in 2010 voters’ list. As such, the said Gift Deed raises doubt to its authenticity. Furthermore, the Gift Deed was executed on 26.09.2016, i.e., 3 days before the filing of the written statement, which was on 29.09.2016, i.e., much after the reference made by the SP(B), to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, whereby a doubt was raised regarding the nationality of the petitioner. 22. Furthermore, it is stipulated in the alleged Gift Deed by the father of the petitioner that the petitioner should get the said land mutated in her name, but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had endeavoured or had submitted any application for getting the said land mutated or registered in her name. Further, it cannot also be ignored that filing of a document and exhibiting the same to show the linkage would be sufficient in a case under the Foreigners’ Act. The document has to be proved by calling the author of such document for examination. Further, it cannot also be ignored that filing of a document and exhibiting the same to show the linkage would be sufficient in a case under the Foreigners’ Act. The document has to be proved by calling the author of such document for examination. In the instant case, it is seen from the order sheet, as stated above that the evidence of DW No. 2, i.e., father of the petitioner was expunged for his non-appearance in the Court and as such, the Gift Deed does not stand proved according to the law. Therefore, the said document cannot come in rescue to the petitioner. 23. It be further stated herein that Tribunal, by order dated 15.06.2017, had expunged the evidence-on-affidavit of DW-2, i.e., the father of the petitioner and as such, the said learned Tribunal did not rightly discuss about the evidence adduced by DW-2 as well as the documents submitted by the said witness. There is no wrong committed by the learned Tribunal in the facts of the said case. CONCLUSION: 24. On the available materials, we find that the Tribunal rendered opinion upon due appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and documents brought on record. We would also like to observe herein 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 although for the ends of justice, some exercise has been done to the said effect. We are, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, of the opinion that impugned order dated 22.02.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri, Assam, in BNGN/FT-2/APR/Case No. 251/216, corresponding to Ref. No. BNGN IM(D)T Case No. 1798/03, does not call for any interference and the instant writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 25. The actions consequent upon the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal would follow in accordance with law. 26. The records of the aforesaid FT Case be returned to the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bongaigaon No. 2, Abhayapuri, Assam forthwith, along with a copy of this order.