JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

1. The present application has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 30.07.2019 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 7814/2016.

2. The writ petition was filed assailing an order dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Foreigner's Tribunal (2nd) Bongaigaon in BNGN/FT Case No. 30/2011. Vide the impugned opinion dated 03.12.2016, the petitioner was declared to be foreigner of post 1971 stream.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had produced the following documents:

(1) Annual Patta of 1933 (Exhibit-I)

(2) Annual Patta of 1955 (Exhibit-II)

(3) Voter List of 1966 (Exhibit-III)

(4) Voter List of 1970 (Exhibit-IV)

(5) Voter List of 1985 (Exhibit-V)

(6) Voter ID of Brother (Exhibit-VI)

(7) Certificate by GP Secretary (Exhibit-VII)

(8) Voter List of 1989 (Exhibit-VIII)

(9) Voter List of 1997 (Exhibit-IX)

(10) Voter ID of OP (petitioner) (Exhibit-X)

(11) Order dated 13.02.2012 in favor of OP (petitioner's) niece (Exhibit-XI)

(12) Affidavit (Exhibit-XII)

(13) Gift Deed (Exhibit-XIII)

4. The learned Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances came to a finding that the petitioner was unable to discharge her burden under Section 9 of the Foreigner's Act and accordingly, the reference was answered by holding the petitioner to be a foreigner who has entered Assam post March, 1971 and consequently, orders have been passed. Accordingly, the opinion was rendered on 03.12.2016, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

5. This Court after hearing the parties had passed an order dated 30.07.2019 whereby the impugned opinion dated 03.12.2016 was considered in details. This Court came to a finding that not a single document could be produced to conclusively prove the case of the petitioner. This Court had noticed that the petitioner has projected one Taleb Ali as her elder brother, whose name had appeared in the Voter List of 1966 and the said Taleb Ali was introduced as a witness (DW-2). In the proceeding, a Gift Deed (Ext.-XIII) by said Taleb Ali in favour of the petitioner was brought on record to prove the connection. However, this Court has noticed an intriguing fact that the Deed (Ext. XIII) was executed on 20.10.2016 i.e. after the deposition of the said DW-2, which was on 14.09.2016. Even with regard to the deposition of DW-2, though it was pleaded that he was the brother of the petitioner, the same was not proved in accordance with law. It may be mentioned that the materials fact pleaded in the written statement is required to be proved in accordance with law which was not done in the instant case. It is also a fact that though the petitioner claimed to have elder brothers, none of them had come forward to depose.

6. This Court had further observed that exercise of the Certiorari jurisdiction would not empower the Court to act as a supervising one or an appellate one but it is a jurisdiction to be exercised to examine the decision making process and in the present case, this Court had come to a conclusion that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal are findings of fact based upon materials on record and unless such findings are perverse, a writ Court would be loathe in interfering with such finding.

7. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, vide an order dated 30.07.2019.

8. We have heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioner. We have also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondent No. 1; Shri J. Payeng, learned special counsel, FT, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No. 3.

9. Ms. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opinion dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned FT declaring the petitioner to be an illegal migrant is erroneous as the documents pertaining to her citizenship was ignored/overlooked. It is furt