WA 269/2010 BEFORE HON’BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B.LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner)). Ms. B. G oyal, learned Govt. Counsel makes submission on behalf of the official responden ts. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.6.2010 in W.P.(C) N o. 642/09 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed . In th e writ proceeding the appellant challenged the orders of the Foreigner’s Tribun al, Goalpara in FT 886/G/06 whereby it was declared that the appellant was not a n Indian citizen and was a post 25.3.1971 migrant from Bangladesh. After the Tri bunal’s ex parte declaration (since the appellant remained absent on consecutive dates), she sought review of the Tribunal’s declaration citing various excuses for her absence. But by a common order dated 3.1.09 in four similar review appli cations, the Tribunal held that no case is made out for recall of its earlier or der and accordingly all the four applications were rejected. 3. The appellant contended before the learned Single Judge that she was an Indian citizen by birth and her parents were enrolled in the voters list of the year 1996. In support of the said contention, she placed reliance upon a certifi cate issued by a Gaon Panchayat in respect of one Late Abdul Azi. The certificat e specified that late Abdul Azi was an inhabitant of village Kharmuza Gaon Panch ayat and the appellant claimed Abdul Azi to be her father. But she could not sho w any documents for herself to show that she is an Indian citizen. 4. In the proceeding before the Tribunal, although notice was served on th e appellant, no steps were taken by her to prove her claim and since she was abs ent on consecutive dates, the impugned ex parte declaration was made by the Trib unal on 10.11.08 declaring her to be a post 25.3.1971 stream illegal migrant to India. As is already recorded, when review was sought by the appellant and 3 ot hers, the Foreigner’s Tribunal in all the 4 connected cases i.e. namely, (1) F.T . Case No.1130/G/2006; (2) F.T. Case No. 1122/G/2006 and (3) F.T. Case No.1119/G /2008 and in the appellant’s FT 886/G/06, the same was refused. The Tribunal fou nd the tendered explanation for failure to file written statements to be not rea sonable and accordingly the ex parte declaration was confirmed in all the 4 case s. 5. The declaration made by the Foreigner’s Tribunal in the batch Case No. F .T. 1130/G/2006 pertaining to one Smti. Tarabhanu was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 1166/09 which however was dismissed by Writ Court on 12.8.09. Resultant Appeal i.e. W.A. No.280/09 filed by Smti. Tarabanu was considered by the Appellate Ben ch and thereafter by the order dated 14.9.09, the Appeal too was dismissed at t he admission stage. 6. We find that the learned Single Judge in the present case considered the dismissal order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 280/09 and following t he Appellate order in Tarabanu’s Writ Appeal, the impugned order has been passed whereby the writ petition of Mrs. Bahara Khatun was dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the a ppellant who prays for one more opportunity to prove her Indian citizenship. But we find from the proceeding of the Tribunal that the appellant was absent on mo st dates and she failed to avail the opportunity to establish that she is an In dian citizen. 8. Even before this Court, the writ petitioner has not enclosed any accepta ble document to show that she is an Indian citizen by birth although in her affi davit she mentions her age as 60 years. In the absence of any acceptable proof, we hold that she failed to discharge the burden of proof as envisaged under Sec tion 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 9. That apart, we have also perused the order passed by the Division Bench on 14.9.09 in WA No. 280/09 which has been made the basis for the impugned order by the learned Single Judge in the present proceeding. The case of the appellan t therein and the present appellant are on the same footing and when WA No. 280/ 09 has been dismissed, the present Appeal must in our view suffer the same fate. 10. Having considered the case pleaded by the appellant and also the judgmen t rendered in the parallel proceeding, we see no reason to interfere with the de claration made by the Foreigners Tribunal which stands affirmed by the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant. Consequently, this Appeal fails an d is ordered accordingly. No costs.