Review petitions must demonstrate a material error on record; the mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not warrant a re-hearing of one's case.

JUDGMENT :

M. Nandi, J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. J.Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H.K Hazarika, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent.

2. By filing this application under Chapter X of the High Court Rules R/W Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908, the petitioner has prayed for review of the order dated 07.02.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C) 3189/2016.

3. The case of the review petitioner, in brief, is that a reference has been made by the Superintendent of Police (B), Kamrup to give opinion as regards the status of the review petitioner as a citizen of India. In reference of the same, a FT Case vide No. 1561/2008 was registered against the review petitioner. But subsequently, the said case has been re-numbered as FT case No.54/2015. The contention of the review petitioner is that there was no proper investigation and no main grounds have been disclosed in the notice served upon her.

4. On receipt of the notice, the review petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement wherein it was contended that she is the daughter of one Shahid Ali, a resident of Village – Dighali Pathar Matikhula, PS and PO- Barpathar under Golaghat district. Her grandfather’s name was Shutka Sheikh, who was citizen of India having legacy data. She claimed that she is a citizen of India by birth having sufficient documents in this regard. While filing written statement, she enclosed 10(ten) nos. of documents including legacy data of her grandfather, voter lists of 1989, 1994 and voter identity card of her father and certificates of gaonburah and Panchayat Secretary.

5. The further case of the review petitioner is that the petitioner was examined before the Tribunal along with some other witnesses. In her evidence, the petitioner claimed that her grandfather Shutka Sheikh was enrolled as a voter since 1966 being the resident of village – Tapabari and subsequently resided in village - Dighali Pathar, Matikhula under Golaghat district. The review petitioner also claimed that her parents are permanent resident and voters of village - Dighali Pathar, Matikhula of Golaghat district. She was married to one Tamez Ali and thereby, she became the resident of village – Bangalpara under Hajo P.S in Kamrup district and her name is recorded in the voter list along with her husband.

6. The review petitioner also stated that her father Shahid Ali adduced evidence before the Tribunal and was also cross-examined as DW-2. The other witness gaonburah was examined as DW-3 who has also supported the case of the petitioner that she is the daughter of Shahid Ali and Nubiran Begum of Village - Dighali Pathar Matikhula of Golaghat district. The husband of the petitioner also examined as DW-4 who stated before the Tribunal that he got married to the review petitioner in the year 2001 and since then, they are living together as husband and wife.

7. The review petitioner’s case was finally disposed of by an order dated 27.04.2016. The learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record and disbelieved the documents and the oral evidence of the review petitioner and her witnesses and declared the review petitioner as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971.

8. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal dated 27.04.2016, passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup(R) at Hajo, the review petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this Court vide WP(C) 3189/2016 which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2018.

Hence, this review petition.

9. The lear