Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Sharif, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Government Advocate, Assam. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.09.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3162 of 2011, filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.05.2010, passed by the Foreigners' Tribunal, Nagaon, declaring the appellant to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory, i.e., Bangladesh after 25.03.1971.

2. It appears that a reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon, under the Foreigners' Act, 1946, based on the report of the Electoral Registration Officer, Nagaon, who recorded the petitioner as a doubtful voter following intensive revision of electoral roll. Be it stated that the appellant got her name entered in the draft electoral roll of 1997 in respect of Rupahihat constituency as a resident of Village-South Jeumari, under Rupahihat Police Station, in the district of Nagaon, when she was marked as a doubtful voter.

3. Notice issued by the Tribunal was served upon the appellant, whereafter, appellant appeared before the Tribunal by filing written statement, denying the allegation made and claimed to be a citizen of India by birth. Stand taken in the written statement was that her father, Kumud Ali was a voter in the year 1965 in respect of Kaliabor constituency. However, when the turn for evidence came, appellant remained absent. In such circumstances, Tribunal decided to proceed ex-parte. Since the appellant could not discharge her burden as per mandate of Section 9 of the Foreigners' Act, 1946, the reference was answered in favour of the State in the above manner.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, petitioner preferred the related writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3162 of 2011. Learned Single Judge on due consideration declined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29.09.2015.

5. Hence, this appeal.

6. At the outset, we enquired from Mr. Sharif, learned counsel for the appellant as to whether copy of the written statement has been annexed to the memo of the appeal; if not, whether he has a copy of the written statement. In response, Mr. Sharif submits that copy of the written statement is not available. He, however, submits that this Court should re-examine all the documents annexed to the memo of appeal and, thereafter, remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on merit. Further argument of Mr. Sharif is that it was the solemn duty of the Enquiry Officer to have visited the house of the appellant to find out as to how her name appeared in the draft electoral roll of 1997 for the first time. It was also the solemn duty of the Enquiry Officer to find out what was her age in 1997. He, therefore, submits that both the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for decision afresh.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the learned Single Judge and seeks dismissal of the appeal.

8. Submissions made have been considered.

9. Before we advert to the submissions made by Mr. Sharif, learned counsel for the appellant, let us see the order passed by the Tribunal. Order dated 17.05.2010 of the Tribunal discloses filing of written statement by the appellant. A written statement is the basic statement of defence of a proceedee before the Foreigners' Tribunal. When his citizenship is questioned by the State, he has to disclose all relevant facts which are within his special knowledge and which are material to the question of citizenship at the first instance itself, i.e., in the written statement. It is a settled proposition of law that variation between pleadings and proof is not permissible. A proceedee cannot traverse beyond the pleadings. That