Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Moinul Haque Alias Mainul Haque, S/o Late Riaz Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through The Secy., To The Govt. Of India, The Ministry Of Home Affairs Griha Mantralaya, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner’s background and timeline of events. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. errors in tribunal process and petitioner’s claims. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. defense of proper service and burden of proof. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's reflection on petitioner's conduct and prior knowledge of proceedings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. cpc provisions regarding review applications. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. review petition not justified; prior knowledge and diligence lacking. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. court's dismissal of the review petition. (Para 21 , 22) |
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
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.
Review petitions in citizenship cases require new evidence or errors apparent on record, not mere re-hearing of previous arguments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the service of notice must be proper, and the rejection of a prayer for vacating an ex parte order should not be merely on technical grounds.
The burden of proving citizenship lies with the proceedee under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and failure to participate in proceedings results in the declaration of foreigner status.
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.
The High Court by invoking its inherent powers, can always pass adequate orders to correct such errors that appear to be apparent on the face of the record.
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 burden of proving citizenship rests on the proceedee, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining the decision-making process.
The burden of proof on the suspect to establish citizenship and the consequences of failing to discharge that burden, as well as the requirement for reasoned orders in cases before the Foreigners' Tr....
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
