Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MANISH CHOUDHURY
Anowara Begum @ Anowara Khatun, D/o. Mofiz Uddin Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
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, 19
The scope of review under Article 226 is limited to correcting procedural errors or new evidence; re-evaluating merits is not permissible.
The burden of proving citizenship under the Foreigners Act lies on the petitioner, and a review petition cannot be used to reargue the case based on previously dismissed evidence.
Review petitions must demonstrate clear errors or new evidence; mere dissatisfaction with prior rulings is insufficient for review.
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.
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
A review petition must show an error apparent on the record or new evidence; the burden of proof for citizenship lies with the petitioner under the Foreigners Act.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
