order

06-10 -2021 [N. Kotiswar Singh, J]

Heard Mr. R.P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Asstt. SGI, for respondent No.1; Ms. A. Verma, learned Special Counsel, F.T. appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 4, Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No.5, Ms. U. Das, learned State Counsel, appearing for respondent no.3 and Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC for respondent no.6.

2. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) NO.7430/2018. By the said order, this Court after considering the merit of the case took a view that the opinion dated 28.08.2018 rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup(M) 2nd, Guwahati in F.T. Case No.188/2016 against the petitioner does not require any interference. This Court at the time of passing of the said order referred to the documents exhibited by the petitioner in the trial before the Tribunal and referred to the evidence of the proceedee and also one Zakir Hussain, who identified himself as the projected father of the petitioner. This Court, however, did not give weightage to the said evidence as it was an oral testimony and as the said evidence was without being supported by any documentary evidence, it was observed that the same cannot be said to be a proof of citizenship. Further, this Court also referred to the birth certificate of the proceedee, which was exhibited as Exhibit-1 and this Court took the view that the same was not proved as the author of the document was not examined and without examining the author of the document, the contents of the same cannot also be said to be proved.

3. Under such circumstances, the petition was dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for review of the said order. Though some grounds are mentioned in the petition, at the time of hearing, the ground urged is that this Court while considering the admissibility of the documents and birth certificate of the petitioner ought to have examined the same by applying Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This submission if considered will involve consideration of issues on merit and would amount to re- hearing on this aspect. We are of the view that examining the earlier decision of this Court passed on 30.08.2019 in WP(C) No.7430/2018 on merit as sought for perhaps may not be permissible in a review petition. Though the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are not strictly applicable in the proceeding before the Tribunal and also before this Court while examining the opinion of this Court, the principles of CPC would be applicable and it is well settled that a review would lie to correct mistake which is apparent on the face of the records or discovery of new and important materials or evidence, which could not be produced earlier after exercise of due diligence.

4. We do not find that petitioner has been able to make out a case for review of the order dated 30.08.2019 as the exercise which he seeks us to undertake is to revisit the matter on merit, which is perhaps beyond the scope of the review petition. No discovery of new and important material or evidence has been urged.

5. Under such circui mstances, we have no option but to dismiss the review petition as no ground has been made out for reviewing the earlier order.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant