Review petitions in citizenship cases require new evidence or errors apparent on record, not mere re-hearing of previous arguments.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for respondent.

2. This review petition has been filed to assail the order dated 15.11.2019, passed by this Court in WP(C) 4759/2019. By the said order, this Court had dismissed the writ petition and thereby refused to interfere with the opinion dated 31.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal nd Kamrup (M) 2 , in F.T. Case No. 1552/2015, by which the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the proceedings before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner had exhibited 9 (nine) documents, viz., voters list of 1965 (Ext.A), voters list of 1966 (Ext. B), voters list of 1970 (Ext. C), voters list of 1993 (Ext. D), voters list of 1997 (Ext. E), voters list of 2014 (Ext. F), school certificate dated 11.06.2012 (Ext. G), socio-economic and caste census-2011 acknowledgement slip of Basir Ali (Ext. H), Gaonburah’s certificate dated 25.01.2019 (Ext.I). It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is Harej Ali who is a daily wage earner and he had stated that his father name is Late Basir Ali. However, the learned Tribunal on finding some discrepancy in the age and spelling of the name of persons whose names appear in the voters lists, held that from the voters’ lists of 1965, 1966 and 1970, it cannot be ascertained that person named as Basir Ali is the same person named as Basir projected father of Harej Ali/ Haraj Ali, the voter in the voters lists of 1993, 1997 and 2014 and therefore, rejected the entire evidence in the absence of continuous existence in Indian soil.

4. It has been submitted that even in the notice of the proceedings, which was served on the petitioner, the name of the father of the petitioner is recorded as Md. Basir Ali. Moreover, it is submitted that the evidence tendered by the petitioner claiming that the name of his father is Basir Ali @ Md. Basir Ali @ Basir and that the mother’s name is Moymon Khatun was not even questioned in his cross-examination and there was no rebuttal evidence of the State. It is submitted that it is an admitted position in the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Anuwar Hussain v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 2015 NOC 77 (Gau), it has been held to the effect that “… it is common phenomenon in rural areas more particularly among Muslim community to have more than one name and this discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father was not too great to draw adverse inference.” In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case in the case of Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 534 .

5. It has been further submitted that the investigation which was done by the Enquiry Officer was not a fair investigation and similarly, the trial of the petitioner was also not fair. In this regard he has placed reliance in the paragraph no. 97 and 98 of the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal , 2013 (1) GLT 809.

6. It is further submitted that under Article 221 of the Constitution of India, there is a Constitutional right of the petitioner to protect his life and personal liberty and that the same has been lost due to unfair investigation and trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the