A party who fails to discharge the burden of proof regarding citizenship and allows an inordinate, unexplained duration to elapse before seeking legal recourse is not entitled to equitable relief, as review jurisdiction cannot be utilized to reopen settled matters or re-hear cases after years of negligence.

ORDER :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC for respondent no.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for FT matters, Border matters and NRC, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5; and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no.4.

2) The facts of the case of the petitioner, namely, Raham Ali are as follows:-

a. A reference was made suspecting that he was a doubtful citizen and had got his name enrolled as a voter in the Draft Electoral Roll of 1997 in Rupahihat LAC from village- Mahguri, under Juria Police Station of Nagaon District. The said reference was registered before the Foreigners Tribunal 1st , Nagaon, as F.T. Case No. 825/2007.

b. Though the petitioner had filed his written statement, but he had failed to adduce any evidence to prove the contention made in his written statement. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had held that the petitioner had failed to discharge his burden of proving himself to be not a foreigner as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Resultantly, vide ex parte opinion dated 01.07.2010, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 1st , Nagaon, in F.T. Case No. 825/2007, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner from Bangladesh of post 25.03.1971 stream.

c. After a long delay of about 5 (five) years, on 06.10.2015, the petitioner had filed a review petition in respect of ex parte opinion th dated 01.07.2010, before the learned Foreigners Tribunal 4 , Nagaon, under the provisions of Section 114 read with section 151 and Order XLVII CPC, and Order 3(2) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The said review petition was registered as Misc. Case No.1/2015 [in connection with F.T. Case No. 825/07]. Along with the said review petition, the petitioner had filed a separate application on 06.10.2015, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the review petition. The said review petition was also registered as Misc. Case No.1/2015 [in connection with F.T. Case No. 825/07].

d. The explanation for not adducing evidence in the proceedings of F.T. Case No. 825/2007 was not found acceptable and thus, the said two petitions/applications were dismissed by order dated 17.12.2015 and as per the said order, the petitioner was absent before the learned Tribunal even on 17.12.2015.

e. The petitioner had unsuccessfully assailed (i) the ex parte opinion dated 01.07.2010, passed in F.T. Case No. 825/2007; and (ii) the order dated 17.12.2015, passed in Misc. Case No.1/2015 before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 7581/2016. It may be stated that the said writ petition was filed on 05.12.2016, after a lapse of 6 years, 5 months, 4 days (or 2349 days) from the date of the opinion dated 01.07.2010, and after a lapse of 11 months, 18 days (or 354 days) from the order dated 17.12.2015, passed in Misc. Case No.1/2015. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 05.01.2017.

f. Aggrieved by all the above, the petitioner then filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) before the Supreme Court of India, and the matter was registered as Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civi