Point of Law : a review is permissible only for correction of any error apparent on the face of the record and/or for the ends of justice. We find no such error nor was any such error pointed out by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J.

1. This Review Petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 3959/2020 which was preferred by the present review petitioner. A reference was made against the review petitioner by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta under the erstwhile IM(D)T Act vide reference No. IM(D)T No. 10787/98, expressing doubt about the nationality of the opposite party i.e. review petitioner herein to decide as to whether the opposite party/review petitioner is or is not an illegal migrant. After the IMDT Act was struck down by the Supreme Court, the reference was assigned to Foreigners Tribunal No. 6, Barpeta. In terms of the reference, the Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 6, Barpeta registered a case being F.T. Case No. 23/16. Notices were served upon the review petitioner. Matter was contested by review petitioner by filing written statements and by adducing evidence. By order dated 17.01.2019, the Foreigner’s Tribunal, Barpeta rendered its opinion answering the reference in affirmative and holding the opposite party/review petitioner to be a foreigner/illegal migrant who had entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971. Being aggrieved, the review petitioner approached this Court assailing the opinion dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal. The writ petition being WP(C) No. 3959/2020 came to be dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2020 against which the review petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2020.

2. The writ petition being WP(C) No. 3959/2020 was preferred on the following grounds:-

“i. For that the learned Member, Foreigner’s Tribunal No.6 th , Barpeta ought to have considered that the petitioner is a citizen of India by virtue of his birth in terms of section 3(I) (a) of the citizenship Act, 1955 and the Investigating Agency has not properly investigated the matter in proper perspective and the same is done whimsically and in a mechanical process to substantiate that the petitioner is a foreigner and as such the expression of opinion is liable to be set aside and quashed.

ii. For that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that Janiruddin@Janikuddin@Janif is father and Basiran Nessa, mother of the petitioner whose name are in the electoral roll of 1966, 1970,1989 and 1997 under No.52/45 Baghbar State Legislative Assembly and not considering the same, the opinion signified on 17.01.2019 by the learned tribunal is liable to be reverse.

iii. For that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioner was born in India. His name was also in the electoral roll in 2011, 2015 and casted votes in 2011 in various election on attaining the age of majority and not considering the same, the expressed opinion of the learned member requires interference by this Hon'ble court.

v. For that the petitioner submitted his written statement on 31.03.2016 alongwith the documents which pertains prior to and after 25.03.1971 but the learned member failed to scrutinize the same in proper perspective and the same is verified without deep thought and its consequential situation, thus the opinion of the learned member is wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be struck down in the Interest of justice.

v. For that the learned member ought not to have opined that the petitioner is a foreigner as the definition under section 2(a) cannot be made applicable to him and he is citizen of India and has not entered India even prior to 25.03.1971 or any date thereafter. He was born and brought In India. The so called enquiry and report as submitted by the police is without any substantive and are malicious and based in conjectures and surmises. Because of such, the impugned opinion is liable to be set aside and quashed.

vi. For that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of the Gaonburha a