Gauhati High Court
Samsul Hoque vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 8 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010052172020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./44/2020
SAMSUL HOQUE
S/O LATE HAFEZ UDDIN @ HAFEZ SARKAR, VILL- NIZ BAGHBAR, P.S.
BAGHABAR, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781308
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE STATE COORDINATOR OF NRC
BHANGAGARH
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-5
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781301
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM
PIN- 781301
6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE
BAGHBAR P.S.
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 78130
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 08-01-2021
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar,
learned Central Govt. counsel, Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Kalita,
learned standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal, and Ms. L. Devi, learned standing
counsel for State Coordinator, NRC.
2) This petition for review is in respect of judgment and order dated
14.08.2019, passed in W.P.(C) 4181/2019. At the outset it is submitted that the order under
review was assailed before the Supreme Court of India, which was registered as SLP(C) No.
28272/2019 and by order dated 08.01.2020, permission was granted to the petitioner to
withdraw the said SLP with liberty to file review petition before this Court.
3) As the facts have been referred to in the order dated 14.08.2019, we do not
intend to burden this order with a repetition of facts and finding as narrated therein. For the
Page No.# 3/4
purpose of this order, it would be sufficient to mention that the opinion rendered by the
Foreigners Tribunal was assailed before this Court by filing writ petition and that this Court
observed that the certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate,
the Court would refrain from reviewing the finding of facts reached by the learned Tribunal. It
was also held that no case was made out that the impugned opinion/order was rendered
without affording opportunity of hearing or in violation of the principles of natural justice
and/or that it suffers from illegality by placing reliance on evidence which is legally
impermissible in law and/or that the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible
evidence and/or that the finding finds no support by any evidence at all. It was also held in
other words that the petitioner had not been able to make out any case demonstrating any
errors apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference of the impugned opinion.
4) Although the prayer for review of the order is made on six grounds, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate layman and
that he could not collect additional documents earlier, which were old public documents,
being voters list and land documents like jamabandi (record of rights), as such, those
document which were annexed to the review petition as Annexure B, C and D be admitted
and considered to give complete relief to the petitioner.
5) At the outset, it may be mentioned that ground nos. (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f)
have been touched upon while deciding the writ petition and it was held that from the
documents and evidence brought on record, the petitioner had utterly failed to connect
himself with Hafez Uddin, projected as his father and which name found place in the Exhibits
A and B voter lists of 1966 and 1970 of village Pub Balikuri Non-K respectively.
6) We now examine ground (d) of this review petition. In this regard, it is seen
that the Annexure nos. B, C and D appended to this review petition had not been produced
before the Foreigners Tribunal. The same was also not brought on record in the writ petition,
as such, there was no occasion for the Court to delve upon the said documents never
Page No.# 4/4
produced before it in course of the writ proceeding. Moreover, no statement has been made
in this review petition regarding the date when the said purported documents had been
discovered. There is also no statement to the effect that that despite due diligence the said
documents was not within the knowledge of the petitioner earlier. Therefore, the condition
precedent for exercise of power of review is not found to exist in this case in hand. It is
reiterated that by entertaining the writ petition, this was exercising the certiorari jurisdiction
of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate. Therefore, the finding returned by the
learned Tribunal cannot be interfered with on the strength of documents which had not been
proved in accordance with law. Under such circumstances, this review petition is not found
maintainable, as such, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the review petition is
misconceived and bereft of any merit.
7) Accordingly, this review petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
