IMPORTANT POINT
A review petition must meet specific criteria under CPC Order 47, and failure to demonstrate an error or sufficient reason for delay results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the review petitioner/writ petitioner, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Home Department for respondent Nos. 2, 6 & 7, Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India for respondent No. 3 and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent 5.

2. The instant review petition has been filed by the review petitioner (petitioner) seeking review of the Order dated 07.11.2017 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 550/2016 by invoking Chapter-X of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

3. Brief facts essential for disposal of the instant review petition is that the reference was made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Barpeta under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act, in short) with the allegation that the petitioner was an illegal migrant as defined under IMDT Act. Section 3(1)(C) of the IMDT Act defines an illegal migrant as a foreigner who had unauthorizedly entered into India after 25.03.1971. IMDT Act was declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India & Anr., (2005) 5 SCC 665. Following the direction passed in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (Supra), the said reference against the petitioner was registered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 as FT Case No. 87/2014 and assigned to the Foreigners Tribunal-1, Barpeta (Tribunal, in short) for opinion. Notice was issued to the petitioner by Tribunal whereafter, he entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegation that he was a foreigner by claiming to be a citizen of India. He also adduced evidence, oral as well as documentary. After hearing the matter and upon appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal passed an Order dated 21.09.2015 answering the reference in favour of the State. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 550/2016 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 07.11.2017.

4. Against the order of dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 36181/2019. The SLP was accompanied by I.A No. 172538/2019 for condonation of delay in filing the SLP and also by I.A No. 172544/2019 seeking condonation of delay in re-filing/curing the defects. The said SLP of the petitioner was, however, dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 09.12.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to apply for review before this Court. The petitioner, thereafter, on 22.02.2021 filed the instant review petition.

5. Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that review of the Order dated 07.11.2017 is being sought by the petitioner because of the fact that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel has referred to paragraph Nos. 17, 21 & 24 of the Order dated 07.11.2017 which is sought to be reviewed.

6. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner on 04.08.2014 had sworn an affidavit which he exhibited as Exhibit-E stating that his father’s name was Nayandi Miah and grandfather’s name was Birbal Mia. Nayandi Miah, Nayadi Miah and Nayandi is one and the same person. Therefore, minor discrepancy in the name of the father of the petitioner having been clearly explained in the said affidavit, this Court had committed error in not accepting the same.

7. The learned counsel further submits that minor discrepancies in the age of his father cannot be fatal to the case projected by the petitioner and that the same can be only overlooked in view of the Judgment of this Court in State of Assam & Ors. Vs. Moslem Mondal & Ors., 2013 (1) GLT 809. The learned counsel also submits that the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Tri