Review jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed to the correction of manifest errors of law or fact apparent on the record. It cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal or be used to re-litigate a matter where no such patent error exists or where laches remain unexcused.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(A.M. Kalita, J)

Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned CGC for the respondent No.1; Ms. M. Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. S. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, representing respondent No.2; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing Counsel, FT and NRC, for the respondents No.3, 4 and 6; as well as Ms. R. B. Bora, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 5.

2. The instant review petition has been filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the order dated 09.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 6775/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the opinion dated 13.03.2021 passed by the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No. FTG/411/2011, arising out of SP Enquiry No. 280/2007, thereby declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who entered India post 25.03.1971.The aforesaid writ petition was registered as WP(C) No. 6775/2025, and this Court, by its order dated 09.02.2026, dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground of enormous unexplained delay and laches of 4 years 7 months and 7 days in assailing the impugned opinion dated 13.03.2021 passed by the learned Member of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat.

3. The case of the petitioner, as narrated in the instant petition, is that vide an order dated 21.01.2020, upon receipt of the case of the petitioner and after registering the same, the learned Member of the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat issued notice to the petitioner, fixing a date on 10.02.2020 for submission of service report and appearance. Subsequently, on 10.02.2020, the petitioner, through her engaged counsel, namely Shri Mriganka Saikia from the Golaghat Bar Association filed a petition, being Petition No. 220/2020, seeking another date and accordingly, next date was fixed on 17.02.2020. However, on 17.02.2020, the petitioner remained absent without taking any steps and the matter was again re-fixed on 24.02.2020. On 24.02.2020 also, the petitioner remained absent, but filed a petition being Petition No. 416/2020. Accordingly, another opportunity was granted to the petitioner and the next date was fixed on 23.02.2020. On the said date also, due to the absence of the petitioner, the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal fixed 12.03.2020 for appearance, filing of written statement, etc. However, on that date also, another opportunity had to be given to the petitioner for her appearance and for filing of written statement etc. But due to her absence, the matter was again fixed on 20.03.2020, 04.04.2020, 20.06.2020 and 19.09.2021 respectively. Since the Courts were suspended on those dates due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the matter was, thereafter, fixed on 30.12.2020, 08.01.2021, 18.01.2021, 22.01.2021, 05.02.2021, 11.02.2021, 19.02.2021, 26.02.2021, 11.03.2021, 18.03.2021 and 30.03.2021. Due to the consistent absence of the petitioner, the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Jorhat, by order dated 30.03.2021, passed the impugned opinion in Case No. FTG/411/2011, arising out of SP Enquiry No. 280/2007, thereby declaring the petitioner as a foreigner who had illegally entered into the territory of India after 25.03.1971.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that