Having regard to the inordinate delay in approaching this Court without any explanation and for the facts above, we find that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to establish his claim as not being a foreigner or to refute the allegation that he had illegally entered into the territory of India after 25.03.1971. In this context, we may observe that although the procedure of identification and for declaring an individual to be a foreign national cannot be relegated to a mechanical exercise and that fair and reasonable opportunity must be afforded to a proceedee to establish claim that he/she is a citizen of India, however, such grant of opportunity cannot be enlarged to an endless exercise. A person who is not diligent and/or is unmindful to take steps to safeguard his interest, he does so at his own risk and peril. In the instant case several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to establish his claim, which he utterly failed to do so. In this context, we may observe that in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the primary issue for determination is whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not. The relevant fact being especially within the knowledge of the proceedee, as such, the burden of proving citizenship absolutely rests upon the proceedee, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This is mandated under section 9 of the aforesaid Act, 1946. The said position would not change even in an ex-parte proceeding before the Tribunal as the burden never shifts but continues to be upon the proceedee. In a situation where no evidence is adduced or the burden is not discharged, the only option left to the Tribunal would be to declare the proceedee to be a foreigner, based on the grounds of reference upon which appropriate proceeding was initiated, where notice was issued and duly served upon the proceedee. In the instant case, the petitioner utterly neglected to participate/contest in the proceedings.
