Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. G. Sarma, learned Central Govt. Counsel and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4071/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge upheld the order dated 28.6.2013 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal-III, Barpeta in FT Case No.04(III))/2013 (Ref. IMDT Case no. 1595/01 (State v. Rahim Ali @ Rahimuddin), by the aforesaid order the appellant has been declared to be a foreigner of post 25.3.1971 stream.

3. The Superintendent of Police (B) Barpeta doubting the citizenship of the appellant made a reference to Foreigners Tribunal-III, Barpeta and accordingly FT Case No.04 (III))/2013 (Ref. IMDT Case no.1595/01) was registered against him and the learned Tribunal served a notice upon the appellant to appear before the Tribunal to prove his Indian nationality. In response to the notice he appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement supported by an affidavit enclosing all the relevant documents as well as adduce evidence and exhibited certain documents to prove his citizenship. But the learned Tribunal finally declared the appellant as a foreign national of post 25.3.20171 stream by its order dated 28.6.2013. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being WP(C) No.4071/2013 challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2015.

4. Hence the present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that though the appellant has produced voter list of 1965/1970 appearing the names of the appellant's grandparents, father and uncle and the voter list of 1997 onwards appearing the name of the appellant and his wife, supported by certificates from concerned gaonburah but he same was disbelieved and discarded by the learned Tribunal without proper appreciation. Similarly, it is contended that the learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate the annexed documents though these documents are public documents in view of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and also failed to appreciate that the appellant has discharged his burden by producing required evidence to prove his Indian nationality. On the next it has also been contended that the minor discrepancies in the name and address of the appellant in the document are not committed by the appellant nor by their parents such mistake was committed by the enumerator, govt. officials for which the appellant cannot be blamed and cannot be deprived from the benefit of those public documents. Heard argument of learned counsel for the appellant Mr. HRA Choudhury who has highlighted the grounds of the appeal as has been mentioned above.

5. Mr. Choudhury also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2015(2) GLT 617 (Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (MD) v. Union of India and others) and submits that the appellant having discharged his burden of proof, the onus is shifted to the prosecution and the said onus having not been discharged, the Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the liability to prove the nationality cast upon the proceedee but he has failed to discharge the said burden by producing clinching evidence and the learned Tribunal as well as the learned Single has rightly rejected the case of the appellant. It is also contended that the appellant is to prove the contents of documents and any different interpretation against such contents of documents is not legally permissible.

7. We have given our due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties as well as gone through the impugned orders and the documents filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal and the evidence adduced.

8.