14. This was all that the petitioner stated in his written statement which was wholly inadequate to establish his 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 (supra). Petitioner did not mention his date or year of birth, consequently, his age at the time of filing the written statement remained undisclosed. He also did not mention the name of his mother and paternal grandmother, not to speak of his brothers and sisters, if any. Moreover, petitioner did not mention about his marital status, including the name of his wife and children. All that he stated was that his father and mother were residents of vilallage Mandia Gaon where they were voters but petitioner shifted to village Chatemari. However, even on the face of the written statement, there is material contradiction in the name of the father inasmuch as in paragraph 3, petitioner mentioned Tepu Rajbongshi as his father whereas in paragraph 5, he mentioned Bhulu Rajbongshi to be his father. There is no pleading to the effect that Tepu Rajbongshi and Bhulu Rajbongshi was one and the same person. There was also no explanation as to how and why petitioner’s name was Falu Das and not Falu Rajbongshi, if indeed he belonged to the Rajbongshi community. On the basis of the pleadings, petitioner was required to prove that Tepu Rajbongshi and Bhulu Rajbongshi was one and the same person. He was also required to prove that Tepu Rajbongshi and Bhulu Rajbongshi was his father and finally he was also required to prove that Tepu Rajbongshi and Bhulu Rajbongshi were citizens of India.
