Point of Law: The High Court by invoking its inherent powers, can always pass adequate orders to correct such errors that appear to be apparent on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

1. This Review Petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2020 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3858/2020 which was preferred by the review petitioner before a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court. By the said writ petition, the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati in F.T. Case No. 119/2017 was put to challenge. The Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati vide order dated 24.08.2018 passed in F.T. Case No. 119/2017 answered the reference in respect of the review petitioner in affirmative and holding that the review petitioner was a migrant who had entered India from Bangladesh illegally after 24th of March, 1971. The said opinion was put to challenge by way of a writ petition. The writ court vide Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2020 dismissed the writ petition filed by the review petitioner and declining to interfere with the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati in F.T. Case No. 119/2017.

2. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2020 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3858/2020 on the following grounds:

“GROUNDS

(A) For that the Hon’ble Court rightly held that in the voter list of the year 1966, 1970, 2011 and 2016 shows that petitioner and his family members are the resident of village Bowali but only the voter list of the year 1997 the residential village of the petitioner reflects as Khopatia. The Hon’ble Court also held that though the statement of the shifting his village didn’t mention in the written statement but it is mentioned in evidence-in-chief. Hence there is no gross mistake on the part of the petitioner regarding his statement of shifting his village as he made the statement of shifting of his village in his evidence-in-chief. As such there is error apparent on the face of the order dated 07.10.2020 and it is liable to be reviewed.

(B) For that the Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate to the fact that petitioner clearly made statement in his written statement that his father’s actual name is Abdur Rahman and the petitioner also said in his cross examination that his father’s name is Abdur Rahman and also made clear statement in evidence in chief that some of the voterlist his father’s name appears as A. Rahman and some of it appears as Abdur Rahman, Abdur Rahman Sheikh and all are the name of same and one person i.e. his father. The Hon'ble Court also failed to appreciate the Voterlist of the year 2011 and 2016 of the petitioner wherein it is clearly reflected that the father’s name of the petitioner is Abdur Rahman but the Hon’ble Court only mentioned one voterlist i.e. the voterlist of the 1997 wherein the father’s name of the petitioner reflected as A. Rahman the short form of Abdur Rahman and hence it cannot be put any doubt that Abdur Rahman and A. Rahman is not same and one person i.e. the father of the petitioner. Hence there is error apparent on the face of the order dated 07.10.2020 and it is liable to be reviewed without causing any impediment to serve justice.

(C) For that the Hon’ble Court while deciding the case glossed over the Voter List of 1960 and 1966 (Annexure No. 1 and 2) produced by the petitioner which reflects the name of his grandfather as well as his father and the aforesaid vital document cannot be ruled out insofar as it sufficiently establishes the link of the petitioner with his father. Therefore the Order dated 07.10.2020 is liable to be reviewed.

(D) For that the Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner exhibited sufficient documents which substantiates his claim of being a bona-fide citizen of India. Hence, the Order dated 07.10.2021 is liable to be reviewed for the ends of justice.

(E) For that the Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate the fact that discrepancy of names cannot be a sole ground to cast aside entire evidence and decide the fate of an individual by harping on such discrepancies