ORDER

03.02.2020 (P.J. Saikia, J)

Heard Mr. J. C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kalita, learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal as well as Ms. A. Verma, learned standing counsel for the NRC.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 08.05.2019, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon, Court No. 10th at Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, Assam. By the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal had declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream.

3. On a reference made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Hojai, Assam, the Tribunal had issued notice to the petitioner. She accordingly appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement. In support of her case, the petitioner has exhibited 14 (fourteen) numbers of documents. The documents are:-

1. Exhibit-1 is the migration certificate, which shows that Smt. Makhan Bala Sen have 5 (five) children’s namely, Kartik Chandra Sen, Susil Chandra Sen, Hashi Rani Sen, Niyasa Bala Sen and Ganesh Chandra Sen;

2. Exhibit-2 is the voter list of 1966 showing the names of projected grandmother and father of the petitioner;

3. Exhibit-3 is the voter list of 1966 containing the name of projected father of the petitioner;

4. Exhibit-4 is the voter list of 1970 containing the names of projected grandmother and father of the petitioner;

5. Exhibit-5 is the voter list of 1975 containing the names of projected grandmother and father of the petitioner;

6. Exhibit-6 is the voter list of 1989 containing the name of Kartik Chandra Sen and his wife Manu Rani;

7. Exhibit-7 is the voter list of 2016 containing the names of the projected mother, brother and other family members of the petitioner;

8. Exhibit-8 is the school certificate showing the petitioner to the daughter of Kartik Chandra Sen;

9. Exhibit-9 is the Gaon Burah certificate of the village where the petitioner was born and brought up;

10. Exhibit-10 is the voter list of 1997 bearing the name of the petitioner and her husband;

11. Exhibit-11 is another voter list of 2005, bearing the name of the petitioner and her husband;

12. Exhibit-12 is the voter list of 2010 bearing the name of the petitioner and her husband;

13. Exhibit-13 is the voter list of 2014 bearing the name of the petitioner and her husband;

14. Exhibit-14 is the voter I.D. Card;

15. Exhibit-15 is the Aadhaar Card;

16. Exhibit-16 is the death certificate of the father of the petitioner.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the Tribunal had delivered the opinion holding that the petitioner failed to prove her link with her projected father. Regarding Exhibit-8, the school certificate, the person who issued the said certificate was not examined by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner seems to have tried to prove her citizenship on the strength of Exhibit No. 8 and 9. The Exhibit-9 is the certificate issued by the village Goan Burah of the village where she was born and brought up.

6. Certificate issued by Gram Panchayat or Goan Burah do not prove citizenship of a person. These certificates can be used for a purpose of proving the fact that after marriage, a woman has shifted to another village. The law has been settled on this point by the Supreme Court of India in Rupjan Begum Vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 1 SSC 597.

7. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. Ordinarily, the Writ Court would not interfere with the findings of the facts. The writ Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. Such a power is exercised ex debito justitiae to do a substantial justice for the administration of which Courts exist.

8. We find that the petitioner has failed to prove her linkage with her projected father. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence available before it. There is no perversity in the impugned decision of the tribunal.

9. For the aforesaid premised reasons, we find this writ petition to be devoid of merit. Hence, the writ peti