The scope of review under Article 226 is limited to correcting procedural errors or new evidence; re-evaluating merits is not permissible.

JUDGMENT :

[Manish Choudhury, J]

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by styling it as a review petition. By the present petition, the petitioner has sought for review/recall of an Order dated 24.04.2019 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 8178/2018 and another Order dated 11.09.2019 passed in a review petition, Review Petition no. 95/2019. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside and quashing of an Opinion/Order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal [II], Dhubri in F.T. Case no. 328/F/15.

2. The relevant events leading to the institution of the present petition are found necessary to be briefly exposited, at first, before going into the issue involved in the present petition.

3. Suspecting the petitioner to be a doubtful citizen and a foreigner on the basis of a Report submitted by the LVO and ERO of 39, Jaleswar Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC], the Superintendent of Police [Border], Dhubri as a competent authority forwarded a Reference to the Foreigners’ Tribunal [II], Dhubri [‘the Tribunal’, for short] to decide the nationality of the petitioner under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946, as amended. The Reference, so forwarded, was registered as F.T. Case no. 328/F/15. Notice was issued to the petitioner as the opposite party in F.T. Case no. 328/F/15 by the Tribunal. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner as the opposite party entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed a written statement along with copies of a number of documents claiming that she was not a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream.

4. In the course of the proceedings of F.T. Case no. 328/F/15 before the Tribunal, the petitioner as the opposite party-proceedee submitted her evidence-in-chief on affidavit as D.W.1. Along with her evidence, the petitioner-opposite party-proceedee also exhibited ten nos. of documents in support of her claim as a citizen of India. The petitioner-opposite party-proceedee also adduced evidence of another witness, D.W.2 projecting him as her father. The witnesses – D.W.1 & D.W.2 – were duly cross-examined by the other side.

5. It is relevant to mention that as per provision of Section 9 of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946, as amended, the onus of proving that the proceedee is a citizen of India and not a foreigner lies upon the proceedee.

6. The Tribunal after scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner- opposite party-proceedee rendered its Opinion/Order on 29.09.2018. The Tribunal held that the petitioner-opposite party-proceedee had failed to establish her linkage with an Indian parent relatable to a period prior to 25.03.1971, which is the cut-off date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6(a) of the CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1955, as amended. The Tribunal declared the petitioner-opposite party-proceedee a foreigner of post-25.03.1971 stream under Section 2[a] of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946, as amended.

7. Aggrieved by the Opinion/Order dated 29.09.2018, the petitioner preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court on 20.11.2018. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as W.P.[C] no. 8178/2018.

8. In the writ petition, the petitioner for the purpose of establishing linkage to Indian parents relatable to a period prior to the cut-off date of 25.03.1971, projected D.W.2 as her father and one Meherjan N