JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 6; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI appearing for respondent No.3; Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.5. Ms. L. Devi also appears for respondent No.4 as the learned Standing Counsel, NRC.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for review of the order passed by this Court on 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018 by which the aforesaid writ petition filed by the review petitioner challenging the order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur(1st), Assam in F.T. Case No.301/2016 declaring him to be a foreigner who entered into India illegally from the specified territory of Bangladesh after 24.03.1971, was dismissed.

3. Before we enter into the merit of the case and consider the rival contentions submitted before this Court, we will reproduce the order passed by this Court on 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018 which is sought to be reviewed, for better appreciation.

The aforesaid order dated 03.12.2018 reads as follows,

“03.12.2018

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Sarmah, learned counsel for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 5 & 6; Ms. N. Upadhayay, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

Petitioner assails the order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Assam in F.T. Case No.301/2016, declaring him to be a foreigner who entered into India illegally from the specified territory of Bangladesh after 24.03.1971.

To dispel the suspicion that he is a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, he claimed relationship with one Sahed Ali of Village-Borghat under Balipara LAC as his projected father. To establish the linkage he produced and exhibited 3(three) documents, namely, (i) the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1966 (Exhibit-A), recording the name of his projected father Sahed Ali, aged 25 years, (ii) the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1989 (Exhibit-B), recording the name of the petitioner, aged 29 years along with his 2(two) brothers i.e. Atarjan Akond, aged 57 years and Muslem Ali, aged 31 years, showing their relationship with one Sahed Ali, and (iii) single voter digitally certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1993 (Exhibit-C), recording the name of the petitioner, with relationship with one Late Sahed Ali.

Save and except the 3(three) documents above, no other voter lists are produced and exhibited recording the name of the petitioner together with his projected father as voters. The whereabouts of the projected father after 1966 is also not explained in the written statement so filed. What surprises the most is the Exhibit-B Electoral Roll of 1989. Looking at the age of his elder brother Atarjan Akond, shown as 57 years, by simple arithmetics said Atarjan Akond was 34 years in the year 1966 when the age of his father Sahed Ali in the Electoral Roll of 1966 was recorded as 25 years. Clearly, Sahed Ali of the Electoral Roll of 1989 is a different person/entity from the Sahed Ali of Electoral Roll of 1966. In so far as Exhibit-C is concerned, the same being a digitally issued document, was not proved in accordance with law, thus making the said document as inadmissible in evidence.

Apparently, the petitioner failed to establish his linkage to Sahed Ali of the 1966 Electoral Roll. The contents in Exhibit-A and that of Exhibit-B clearly shows that Sahed Ali in both the documents are two different persons, having regard to the in