WA 382/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T. NANDAKUMAR SINGH The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 29th September, 2010 passed by a l earned Single Judge in Review Petition No.93/2010 and an order dated 26.7.2010 i n WP(C) No.3046/2010. The appellant is allegedly a foreigner from Bangladesh. Proceedings were taken a gainst her under the Foreigners Act for deportation to Bangladesh. The appellant entered appearance and submitted her written statement and denied the allegation/charge of being a foreigner. She adduced some evidence of two wit nesses including the Goanburah of the village from where her husband hails. Ther eafter, she stopped appearing in the matter and later on she came to know that t he Foreigners Tribunal had disposed of the case against her by an order dated 18 .2.2010. She was declared to be a foreigner and was required to be deported from India. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred a review petition before the Tribunal but that was rejected. Against the principal order of the Tribunal as well as the order rejecting her r eview petition, the appellant preferred a writ petition, which came to be dismis sed by the learned Single Judge. A review petition directed against the order of dismissal of the writ petition was also rejected. These two orders passed by th e learned Single Judge are in challenge before us in the present writ appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We have also gone through the r ecords. We find that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was not able to produce any cogent evidence to show that she was not a foreigner but was an Indian national. The witnesses who appeared did not categorically st ate that the appellant was an Indian national and even the documents on record d id not explain that the appellant’s father was an Indian national, as claimed. These are questions of fact that have been determined by the Tribunal. The learn ed Single Judge has upheld the conclusions of the Tribunal on facts. The sum and substance of the discussion by the Tribunal as well as by the learne d Single Judge is that there is no substantive or any other evidence to show tha t the appellant is a citizen of India. We are not persuaded to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact. The on us of proof was on the appellant and she failed to discharge that onus. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to some ailment, the appell ant was unable to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal. This has already been n oted by the learned Single Judge. There was no reason given by the appellant why at least her husband could not appear before the Tribunal and explain that his wife (appellant) was not well and that the matter should be adjourned. The appel lant and her husband have taken the matter very casually and only they are to be blamed for this state of affairs. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed