The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition is not maintainable unless there is an error apparent on the face of the records.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The present petition has been filed for review of an order dtd. 17/7/2019 passed in WP (C)/2650/2019. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition, which was filed against an order dtd. 15/12/2018 passed by the Foreigner's Tribunal-4, Barpeta (for short hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has been dismissed and the order of the Tribunal declaring the petitioner, as a foreigner of post 25/3/1971 stream, has been upheld.

2. The review petition has been stated to be filed under Chapter-X of the High Court Rules read with Ss. 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. We have heard Shri AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Shri RK Dev Choudhury, learned ASGI for the respondent no. 1. We have also heard Shri A Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for the respondent nos. 2 and 3; Shri NK Das, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent no. 4; Mr. AI Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for the respondent no. 5 as well as Ms. L Devi, learned Standing Counsel, State Co-ordinator, NRC for the respondent no. 6.

4. The grounds, which have been urged in this review petition, are extracted hereinbelow:

(A) For that in passing the impugned order dtd. 17/7/2019 in WP(C) No. 2650/2019, grave error of Law and facts has been committed. The errors are apparent on the face of the record.

(B) For that this Hon'ble Court decision has wrongly held that as per age (33 years) recorded in the Voter-List of 2016, the petitioner ought to have been Voter in the previous two Voter-Lists but he is not voter and no explanation is furnished. But the fact is that he is voter in both the voter list of 2005 and 2010 respectively in same village and those voter lists are annexed in the writ petition as Annexure No. 17 and 18 respectively. Thus, it is error on the face of the record to hold a view that the petitioner was not voter in previous two voter list.

(C) For that the election officer has wrongly issued the certified copy of voter list of 1997 showing his father's name as Mazibar Rahman instead of correct name is Mazibar Khan. The voter list of 1997 i.e., Hand Written copy of voter list contents this mistake and it exhibited during trial. But in the issuing the certified copy of voter list (1997) and for their, the innocent voter like has been put under triable. The court of law ought to have look into these aspect, which been utterly failed without effort to give justice. the voter list of 1997 both incorrect and correct one are produced in the writ petition. Therefore the view taken in erroneous on the face of records.

(D) For that the birth certificate is a public document; it was duly issued by the competent authority. The present Gaonburah was examined as the Gaonburah issuing certificate has expired. Therefore, oral evidence of DW2 cannot curtailed. Moreover, the available documentary and oral evidence has established linkage. As such view taken is erroneous on the face of records. Therefore, it is a fit case for review.

(E) For that, petitioner's father is still alive and he may be permitted to examine his father to save his precious most right of citizenship.

5. At the time of hearing, emphasise has been given to ground no. (B) and (C). It has been urged that there was error committed by this Court in coming to a finding that since the age of the petitioner in the Voter List of 2016 was recorded as 33 years, his name ought to have appeared, at least, in previous two Voter Lists which were not there without any explanation. However, it has been contended that the name of the applicant had appeared in the Voter Lists of 2005 as well as 2010.

6. The second substantive ground is that because of the wrong committed by the Election Officer while issuing the certified copy of the Voter List of 1997, showing the name of the father of the petitioner, as Mazirbar Rahman instead of Mazibar Khan, the applicant should not be made to suffer. It is stated that the