IMPORTANT POINT
A review petition must demonstrate clear grounds such as errors apparent on the record and must be filed within the statutory time limit to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioner/writ petitioner, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department for respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 3.

2. The instant review petition has been filed by the review petitioner (petitioner) seeking review/modification/alteration of the Order dated 04.06.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 7201/2016.

3. Aggrieved with the Order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal No.5., Kamrup at Rangia in R.F.T. Case No. 56/2015 (State Vs. Padda Sarkar @ Padda Rani Sarkar) declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, who had illegally entered India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 7201/2016 before this Court. This Court, upon hearing the parties and upon perusal of the records of the case, dismissed the writ petition vide Order dated 04.06.2018.

4. According to the petitioner upon filing the writ petition through her engaged counsel, notice was issued and an interim order was passed in her favour on 01.12.2016. After that she was not in touch with her counsel for a long time and then upon being misguided by some persons, she took back her brief from her engaged counsel. Subsequently, on 05.12.2022, she handed over the brief to her newly engaged counsel who found out that the case had already been dismissed on 04.06.2018. Although the Court had appointed an Amicus Curie, as she was not heard, she has filed the review petition after some delay.

5. It may be noted that the instant review petition was filed on 08.06.2023, after about five (5) years from the date of dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that review of the Order dated 04.06.2018 is being sought by the petitioner because of the fact that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. She refers to the grounds taken in the review petition which are abstracted below for perusal: -

“I. For that, the Review Petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to allow her to place her case through her engaged Counsel whom she had explained the actual facts and circumstances regarding her citizenship and who can place her case in its proper perspective.

II. For that, the Government Gaon Burha’s Certificate reflects the linkage of the Review Petitioner with her father, Late Hem Chandra Mandal @ Hem Chandra Das and also references with the Migration Certificate. But the Gaon Burha’s Certificate was not considered by this Hon’ble Court while passing the final order dated 04/06/2018.

III. For that, in any view of the matter, the final order dated 04/06/2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7201/2016 by this Hon’ble Court on the ground given above to secure the ends of justice.”

7. Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the Home Department, on the other hand, submits that a review petition has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of the order sought to be reviewed but in the instant case, it has taken the petitioner about five (5) years to file the instant review petition. He submits that even if one is to understand but without admitting that there was some communication gap between the petitioner and her earlier engaged counsel, even then the petitioner is required to explain why she could not file the review petition soon after engaging a new counsel on 05.12.2022 who no sooner came to learn that the writ petition had been dismissed on 04.06.2018 and the petitioner did not explain the reasons for the delay in the present case. The learned counsel submits that despite the inordinate delay in filing the instant review petition, the petitioner has not even filed a separate application seeking condonation of delay and that she has only made some statements in the review petition which cannot by any means be construed as sufficient cause. He therefore, submits that the review petition should be dismissed on ground