Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in FT (D) Case No.799/2007 declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971.

3. FT(D) Case No.799/2007 was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon (Tribunal) following a reference made by the State with the allegation that petitioner was a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory after 25.03.1971.

4. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the petitioner where after she had entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegation made against her by contending that she was a citizen of India by birth. Petitioner deposed as her own witness and exhibited a number of documents. On behalf of the State, Local Verification Officer had deposed as PW1 and proved the enquiry report submitted by him as Ext.1. On due consideration, Tribunal passed the order dated 15.03.2012 answering the reference in favour of the State by declaring the petitioner as a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971.

5. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

6. This Court by order dated 08.05.2012 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should not be deported from India subject to her appearance before the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon.

7. Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argued that Tribunal had committed a manifest error by misreading the evidence on record. Petitioner had discharged her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which could not be dislodged or rebutted by the prosecution. The finding of the Tribunal having suffered from fundamental flaws is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Particularly on the point of lack of cross-examination by the State to the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Manindra Kumar Dey Vs. Mahendra Sukla Baidya, 1999 (2) GLR 219 as well as a decision of the Supreme Court in Muddasani Venkata Narasaiah Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288. He has also submitted a written argument on behalf of the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and contended that Tribunal had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and thereafter returned a finding of fact. Such a finding of fact cannot be said to be based on inadmissible evidence or being vitiated by non-consideration of admissible evidence or based on no evidence. Even if High Court is not satisfied with the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal, it may not examine the correctness of the same unless it suffers from the fundamental flaws on the above grounds. Therefore, no interference is called for.

9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Also considered the written submission submitted by Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record.

10. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.03.2012, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:-

“(3). I have carefully perused the records and heard argument from both sides. Also I have carefully scrutinized the documents proved and exhibited. As per Ext. ‘Ka’ (the voter list, 1966), Balai Sheikh, purported grandfather of the OP, D voter, was 33 years old in 1966, but the voter list, 1970 (Ext. Kha) shows that said Balai Sheikh was