JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. appearing for respondent nos. 4 & 7. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Asstt. SGI for respondent No.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No.2, Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent No.5 and Ms. K. Phookan, learned State Counsel, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 6.

2. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.4139/2019 by which the petitioner had challenged the ex-parte order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in F.T.(D) Case No.1388/2007 declaring him a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. The said writ petition was rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner in spite of giving proper opportunity to appear before the Tribunal on several occasions did not appear, thus, forfeiting his right to contest the claim that he is an Indian.

3. It has been submitted by Ms. Ghosh that unfortunately though the notice was served to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal on several occasions but on the assigned date, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Tribunal because of his financial hardships.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the petitioner could not engage a counsel due to lack of financial resources. Further, the petitioner was unable to collect his relevant documents at that time, which have been annexed to the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that otherwise the petitioner has sufficient valid documents to prove that he is an Indian and not a foreigner.

Further, it has also been submitted that at the time of inquiry by the verification officer, the review petitioner had furnished all the relevant voters list of 1970 where the name of the petitioner’s projected father Prafulla Das appeared which will conclusively prove that he is a citizen of India by virtue of being the son of the said Prafulla Das, who had cast his vote in the year 1970. Unfortunately, as the petitioner could not produce these documents before the Tribunal, the matter was proceeded ex-parte.

It has been submitted that under the circumstances, the review petitioner may be given another opportunity to prove those documents and to contest the claim that he is not a foreigner, but in fact an Indian.

Ms. D. Ghosh submits that the reference ought not to have been made by the referral authority considering the documents which were made available before the inquiring officer.

5. On the other hand, Mr. N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. has vehemently opposed this review petition on the ground that the order passed by this Court on 11.11.2019 would clearly indicate that 5 (five) occasions i.e. 28.01.2011, 15.03.2011, 12.05.2011, 11.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 were afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal, however, the petitioner remained absent on those days without taking any steps, and, as such, the petitioner had failed to remain alert due to the negligence on his part. As such, the petitioner has to be blame himself for the situation he has been placed in now inasmuch, as it is the obligation of the petitioner to discharge his burden cast under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian which he failed to do so.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, F.T. submits that under the above circumstances, as also held by this Court, no irregularity has been committed by the learned Tribunal so as to warrant review by this Court.

7. It has been submitted by Mr. N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, F.T., that this Court had dismissed the writ petition in the year 2019 and as such, an e