WP(C) 5908/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. Also heard Mr. M. Bhagawati, lear ned Central Govt. Counsel representing the Union of India in the Home Ministry. The petitioner, who has been declared to be the foreigner (Bangladeshi n ational), who entered into Assam after the cut-off date i.e. 25th March 1971 by the Foreigners Tribunal by its impugned order dated 4.7.2008 passed in FT (R) Ca se No.267/2007, has filed this writ petition challenging the legality and/or val idity of the said order. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he did not r eceive any notice from the Tribunal and as such, he could not appear in the afor esaid proceeding. On the other hand, in the impugned order dated 4.7.2008, the T ribunal has recorded that in spite of service of notice on the petitioner, he re mained absent in the proceeding and accordingly, order was passed for ex parte p roceeding and eventually, the impugned ex parte order was passed on 4.7.2008. I have verified the records received from the Tribunal. The records hav e revealed that notice in respect of the case was duly served on the petitioner and he acknowledged receipt of the same on 3.4.2008 by putting his L.T.I. in pre sence of the witness, one Shri Dilip Ali. Neither in the writ petition nor by wa y of filing any additional affidavit, the petitioner has denied that notice was not served on him. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the thumb imp ression appearing in the notice does not belong to the petitioner and that the s ame is of somebody else. The submission so made is without any averment in the w rit petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has come to know about the said notice and the L.T.I. appearing in the same showing acknowledgement o f receipt by the petitioner only on receipt of the records from the Tribunal. If that be so, nothing prevented the petitioner from stating so by filing an addit ional affidavit. On verification of the records of the Tribunal, it appears that after th e impugned order, the petitioner duly appeared before the Tribunal by filing an application for obtaining certified copy of the same. The application was filed on 13.8.2009 and accordingly, certified copy of the order was provided to him. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the notice containe d in the file bearing acknowledgement of receipt of the same by the petitioner. It is the experience of this Court that almost in all such cases of fore ign nationals, the plea is taken blaming advocates engaged in the Tribunal that steps were not taken by the said engaged counsel. Now, the situation has come to such a position in which the petitioner without raising any contention either i n the writ petition or by filing any additional affidavit seeks to contend orall y that the LTI appearing in the notice does not belong to him. I am afraid, such indulgence cannot be given in such an important matter when the State has taken the plea that the petitioner is not an Indian citizen and is a Bangladeshi nati onal, who entered into Assam after the cut-off date i.e. 25.3.1971, As per the declaration made in the affidavit in support of the writ peti tion, the petitioner was aged 50 years on 18.12.2009. But he has placed reliance only on the voter list of 2006. The other documents annexed to the writ petitio n containing his name is also of the years 2008 and 2009. Be that as it may, th e writ Court cannot place reliance on the said documents, which are all photocop ies. The petitioner has failed to discharge his burden to prove that the name of the father of the petitioner had appeared in the 1961 voter list. He cannot now be allowed to take recourse to the course of action adopted by filing the insta nt writ petition. As noted above, the petitioner has also taken recourse to fals ehood by stating that he did not receive any notice from the Tribunal, while the records of the Tribunal speak otherwise. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner, who is in the detention camp, shall be deported to the country of his origin by the Superintendent of Police(Border),Kamrup, Guwahati and the Deputy Commissione r, Kamrup (Rural) shall also ensure deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list. Let the compliance report be furnished on or before 14.08.2010 by the said two a uthorities. Let copies of this order be furnished to the said two authorities. Another copy be sent to the Union of India in the Home Ministry. Ms R. Chakrabo rty, learned State counsel may also be furnished with a copy of this order for h er necessary follow up action. Registry shall send down the L.C.Rs to the Tribunal along with a copy of this or der.