The burden of proof for citizenship lies with the claimant, and review petitions cannot be used to challenge merits unless clear errors or new evidence arise.

JUDGEMENT :

S. P. Khaund, J.

Heard Md. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner Also heard Mr. P.B. Bhattacharyya, learned CGC, Mr J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr H.K. Hazarika, learned Additional Junior Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. An application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Chapter-X of the Gauhati High Court Rules, has been filed with prayer to review the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition(C) No. 3671/2025, against the petitioner. On a reference by the SP(B), respondent No. 6, being Ref. Case No. 12/2007, the proceeding of FT Case No. 123/2007 was initiated against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal on two dates, but he failed to appear on few dates thereafter. This case vide order dated 17.04.2025, was kept “filed” by the Tribunal, but, it was again revived vide order dated 10.06.2022, and thereafter notice was issued. It is further submitted that the petitioner never received any notice issued by the Tribunal, but the learned Tribunal based on the report of the Process Server held that, the notice was duly served as per the provisions of Order 3 (5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals), Order, 1964 and since the petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal after service of notice, the Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946, and vide order dated 08.11.2023, the petitioner was declared as a foreigner who entered India, (Assam) after 25.03.1971.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was picked up by the police authorities on 24.05.2025, and then he was apprised of the impugned ex-parte opinion dated 08.11.2023, declaring him to be a foreigner of Post 1971 stream, and as such the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3671/2025, challenging the ex-parte opinion dated 08.11.2023. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he did not receive the notice issued by the Tribunal after the case was restored by the Tribunal on 10.06.2022, and when fresh notice was issued upon him.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Hojai district and all his documents pertaining to his citizenship are from Hojai district. He used to reside in Karbi Anglong temporarily on lease or rent for the sake of his livelihood. Occasionally, he used to shift his residence and at that point of time, when the notice was freshly issued against him, he had shifted his residence from Rong Nagar to Chinargaon and the notice was served as per Order 3(5)(f) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 at Rong Nagar and thus the petitioner was not aware of the notice. It is further submitted that to substantiate his claim of citizenship, the petitioner had annexed voter’s lists of 1966, 1970, 1997, 2005, 2016 and 2019, along with other relevant documents.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was issued a passport by the concerned authorities after observing due process of law. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this is a fit case for review owing to the presence of error apparent on the face of the record. It has been held in para-8 of the order dated 20.08.2025 in WP(C)/3671/2025, that on 02.1