UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

We have heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Payeng, learned special counsel, Foreigners Tribunal (FT).

2. By filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 28.1.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-1, Karimganj in FT Case No. 482/2012 (State v. Mamida Begum) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.3.1971.

3. This court by order dated 28.4.2016 had issued notice while requisitioning the case record and passed an interim order to the effect that petitioner should be allowed to remain on bail subject to her appearance before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Karimganj and furnishing of adequate surety.

4. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record, including the record requisitioned from the Tribunal.

5. Before examining the record, we find that the reference was duly contested by the petitioner by filing written statement and by adducing evidence. Petitioner also exhibited a number of documents. After due consideration, Tribunal disbelieved the version of the petitioner and opined that she was an illegal foreigner of post-25.3.1971 stream.

6. This finding returned by the Tribunal is a finding based on appreciation of evidence. It is a finding of fact. Ordinarily, a writ court would not interfere with such a finding of fact because the jurisdiction exercised under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appellate but supervisory.

7. Notwithstanding the same, to re-assure ourselves about the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Tribunal, we have once again looked into and re-appreciated the materials on record.

8. In her written statement filed before the Tribunal, petitioner stated that her father was late Abdul Wahab and grandfather was Khusid Ali. Both of them used to reside at village Jatua under Karimganj Police Station in the district of Karimganj. Father was a voter in 1966 in respect of North Karimganj constituency and then again in 1971. Petitioner was born on 20.5.1978 in the aforesaid address. She studied in Zarerbazar ME School up-to Class-VI. In 1996, she married Abdul Sukkur of village Saidpur under Karimganj Police Station. After marriage, her name was enlisted in the voters list of 2005 in respect of North Karimganj constituency and again in 2011.

9. This was all that the petitioner stated in his written statement which by any account was wholly inadequate to establish her identity as a citizen of India having regard to the mandate of section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 as explained by the Supreme Court in paragraph 26 of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, which is extracted hereunder:

“26. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth, (ii) place of birth, (iii) name of his parents, (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like under section 6A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is