Gauhati High Court
Anowara Khatun @ Anowara Khatoon vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 2 August, 2024
Author: M.R.Pathak
Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010075272024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./54/2024
ANOWARA KHATUN @ ANOWARA KHATOON
WIFE OF ABDUL MAZID, DAUGHTER OF ALIMUDDIN @ ALIMUDDIN SK.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAKUAMARI, P.S.- SALBARI IN
THE BAKSA DISTRICT OF ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. PIN -110001.
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
NEW DELHI- 110001.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAKSA
MUSHALPUR
781372.
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
BAKSA
MUSHALPUR
781372.
Page No.# 2/13
6:COORDINTOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-4
Advocate for the Petitioner : A W AMAN, MR. D K AGARWALA,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ,MS
SURAYA RAHMAN,MR S A BARBHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, F.T,SC, ECI
Linked Case : WP(C)/7467/2023
ANOWARA KHATOON @ ANOWARA KHATUN
WIFE OF ABDUL MAZID
DAUGHTER OF ALIMUDDIN @ ALIMUDDIN SK.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAKUAMARI
P.S.- SALBARI
IN THE BAKSA DISTRICT OF ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI. PIN -110001.
2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
NEW DELHI- 110001.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
Page No.# 3/13
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAKSA
MUSHALPUR
781372.
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B)
BAKSA
MUSHALPUR
781372.
6:COORDINTOR
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-4.
------------
Advocate for : MR A W AMAN
Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
02-08-2024
(M.R.Pathak, J)
1) Heard Mr. A W Aman, learned counsel for the review petitioner/writ petitioner, Mr. J
Payeng, learned standing counsel, Home Department, Assam for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 and
Mr. R Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the responded No. 4.
2) Aggrieved with the ex-parte order /opinion dated 23.12.2019 passed by learned Foreigners
Tribunal, Baksa in FT Case No. 42/BAKSA/2019 declaring her to be a Foreigner who had illegally
entered into the territory of India (Assam) from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971.
Pursuant to the said order of the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa dated 23.12.2019 passed in
FT Case No. 42/BAKSA/2019, the petitioner was taken into custody on 31.10.2023, after three
years ten months and kept her in the detention camp at Matia, District-Goalpara.
3) Thereafter, the petitioner on 19.12.2023 filed a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 7467 of 2023
challenging the said order dated 23.12.2019 of the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa in said F.T.
Page No.# 4/13
Case No.42/BAKSA/2019. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the
materials in it, this Court by order dated 07.03.2024 dismissed the said WP(C) No. 7467/2023 of
the petitioner.
4) The petitioner has now, filed this Review Petition on 06.04.2024 seeking review of the
Order dated 07.03.2024 passed by this Court in said WP(C) No. 7467/2023 on the following
grounds, along with an interlocutory application being I.A.(Civil) No. 1108/2024 praying for a
direction to release the petitioner from Matia Detention Centre. The Grounds taken by the
petitioner for review of said Order dated 07.03.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 7467/2023 as been set
forth and typed in the present Review Petition are as follows:
A. Because the Hon'ble High Court ought to have considered the evidence and
exhibits brought on record by the Petitioner here in.
B. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate the evidence and exhibits in
proper perspective and pass the impugned judgment without applying its judicious
mind an erroneously declared the Petitioner to be a foreigner under section 2(a) of
the Foreigners Act,1946.
C. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a citizen
by birth by virtue of Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act. The petitioner was born
on 01.01.1970 as such she is citizen by birth.
D. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner being a
citizen of India before 1985 is exempted from the provision AB section 6A of the
Citizenship Act, 1955 by virtue of provisions of section 6A(7)(a) of the Citizenship
Act, 1955.
E. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that the Notice and Reference
was issued against the petitioner to prove that she was a foreigner of 01.01.1966
and 25th March,1971 stream, but the Ld. Tribunal passed an ex-parte order holding
that the petitioner is foreigner of post 1971 stream. This is judicial overreach and
clear manifestation and non-application of mind by the Ld. tribunal.
F. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had no
intention to flee the proceedings but the exceptional circumstances could not allow
Page No.# 5/13
her to present before the Ld. Tribunal to adduce her Written Statement [Refer:
Asor Uddin Vs. Union of India Order dated 9/9/2021 in WP(C)/6544/2019.
G. Because the Petitioner has a good case on merits, and the Ld. Tribunal order dated
23.23.2019 has caused irreparable damage to the petitioner. Mere technicality
should not be relied on to deny the natural rights of the petitioner.
H. Because the Hon'ble High Court failed to appreciate the principle of waiver of
rights as specified in the legal maxim of "vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura
subveniunt" do not attract in the case because the Citizenship is a public right as
envisaged in the constitution of India and the aforesaid principle is only applicable
to private rights emerging from the contracts of two private parties.
I. Because the Hon'ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the ex-parte order by
the Ld. Tribunal will have a dipropionate effect on the petitioner leading it to the
violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5) Placing the copy of the Reference dated 08.09.2010 made by the Superintendent of Police
(Border), Baksa (BTAD), Assam to the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari, Annexure-3 to this Review
Petition, Mr Aman learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the concerned referring authority
itself stated that the petitioner entered into Assam after 1st January 1966 and before 25 th March
1971 illegally and on the basis of said reference dated 08.09.2010 only, the learned Foreigners
Tribunal Baksa registered the FT Case No. 42/BAKSA/2019 against the petitioner in which notice
was issued to her on 06.06.2019.
6) Mr. Aman also placed the copy of the Notice dated 06.06.2019 issued by the said Foreigners
Tribunal to the petitioner that she received, Annexure-4 to this petition, to show that the said
notice itself reflects that the Tribunal while asking her to show cause, it stated that she had
illegally entered into Assam without any valid document between 01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971 and
residing in Assam, underlining the said period from 01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971. In that regard
Mr. Aman, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner also placed the original copy of the said
Notice relating to FT Case No. 42/BAKSA/2019 dated 06.06.2019 that was served on herby the
Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa. However, on its perusal of the same we found it to be a carbon copy.
7) Mr. Aman, learned counsel stated that in spite of the above, the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa
Page No.# 6/13
by an ex-parte order dated 23.12.2019 opined/declared the petitioner to be a foreigner who had
illegally entered into India (Assam) on or after 25.03.1971. Mr. Aman submitted that said action
in passing the order dated 23.12.2019 by the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa clearly showed its
judicial overreach, clear manifestation and non-application of mind.
8) Mr. Aman, also stated that at the time of filling the writ petition WP(C) No. 7467/2023, the
petitioner did not have the said copy of the Reference dated 08.09.2010 made by the
Superintendent of Police (Border)and that copy of the said reference dated 08.09.2010 as well as
the said copy of the Notice dated 06.06.2019 served upon her by the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa
were received by the landed counsels from the petitioner only after filing thesaid writ petition by
her.
9) In support of his argument made on behalf of the review petitioner, Mr. A W Aman, learned
counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Uma Nath
Pandey and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2009) 12 SCC 40, (ii)
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and Others reported in (2013) 10
SCC 136 and (iii) Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim Vs. State of Assam and Others [Civil Appeal
No._______ of 2024 @ SLP (Civil) No._______ of 2024 @ Diary No. 20674 of 2017 decided on
11.07.2024].
10) Mr Aman also stated in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim (supra),its earlier decisions in the cases of Abdul Kuddus Vs. Union of
India, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 604, Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005)
5 SCC 665 as well as Sarbananda Sonowal (II) Vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 1 SCC
174have also been considered.
11) Rebutting the arguments of Mr. Aman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J Payeng,
learned Standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal and Home Department of the State,
appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 submitted that the Foreigners Tribunal issues show
cause notice to the person concerned to whom the question relates as required under Order 3 of
the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964 enabling the said person to file reply and to produce
evidence to prove his or her nationality within time specified as envisage under the said 1964
Order. Mr. Payeng also submitted that such Notice is issued by the Foreigners Tribunal to the
person to whom such question relates only after considering the reference made by the
concerned referral authority, i.e., the Superintendent of Police (Border) and the reports of the
Page No.# 7/13
concerned officer(s) relating to the investigation of the person concerned whose name is
forwarded to it to determine and to give opinion as to whether the said person is or is not a
foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 that are forwarded by the said referral authority along
with its reference.
12) The Superintendent of Police (Border), Baksa by communication dated 08.09.2010 while
referring the matter relating to the review petitioner Musstt. Anuwara Khatun to the Foreigners
Tribunal, Nalbari seeking opinion as to whether she is a foreigner or not, though stated that she
appears to be a foreigner who had entered into Assam after 1 st January, 1966 and before
05.03.1971 illegally, Mr. Payengsubmitted that, from the interrogation/ investigation/inquiry report
dated 25.08.2010 with regard to the review petitioner, submitted by the concerned
Investigating/Inquiry Officer containing the signatures of the concernedOfficers as well as the
concerned Superintendent of Police annexed by the petitioner herself as Annexure-3 at Pages-89
and 94, clearly indicates that after such interrogation/investigation/ inquiry the petitioner was
found to be a suspected illegal foreigner who had entered into India after 25.03.1971 without any
valid document. Mr. Payeng further pointed out that the order of the Superintendent of Police in
the said report specifies that it appears to the said authority in a prima-facie manner that the
petitioner is suspected to be a foreigner who had entered into India illegally and therefore, the
case was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari for trial.
13) Mr. Payeng, placing the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer dated 08.09.2010 Annexure-3
at Page-101, annexed by the petitioner to her Review Petition, that from the
interrogation/investigation/inquiry report relating to the petitioner, submitted by the concerned
Inquiry Officer containing its signatures and also of the Superintendent of Police, wherein it is
clearly indicated that petitioner was found to be a suspected foreigner who entered into India
illegally and therefore, the case was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari for necessary
opinion.
14) In that regard, Mr. Payeng, standing counsel, Foreigners Tribunal and Home Department of
the State placed the records in original relating to Case No.42 Baksa/2019 containing the original
reference letter dated 08.09.2010 of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Baksa; original report
relating to Foreign National submitted by the concerned Inquiry Officer containing its signature as
well as the signature of the Superintendent of Police as reflected in the said Annexure-3 of the
review petition. Mr. Payeng also placed the original copy of the notice issued by the Foreigners
Page No.# 8/13
Tribunal, Baksa in the Case No.42 Baksa/2019 dated 06.06.2019 containing her thumb
impression, signature of the witness and report of the concerned process server regarding service
of notice of the said case upon the petitioner.
15) Mr. Payeng, learned counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal and Home Department placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs.
Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320,wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down all the points
as to when a review petition should be considered and when should be rejected. Mr. Payeng also
relied on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rukia Begum Barbhuiya
@ Rukia Begum Vs. Union of India and 5 Others, [W.P.(C) No. 2297/2021] decided on 12.06
2023. Relying on those decisions Mr. Payeng submitted that prayer made by the petitioner in this
review petition being not tenableshould be rejected.
16) We have perused the records in original relating to Case No.42 Baksa/2019 submitted by
Mr. Payeng containing the original reference letter dated 08.09.2010 of the Superintendent of
Police (Border), Baksa; original Interrogation Report relating to the petitioner that was submitted
by the concerned Inquiry Officer on 25.08.2010 containing its signature wherein the petitioner
was found to be a suspected illegal foreigner who entered into India after 25.03.1971 without any
valid document that was affirmed by the Superintendent of Police with his signature and finding
that it appeared to him in a prima facie manner that the suspect Musstt. Anuwara Khatun
(petitioner) is a foreigner who had entered India illegally and hence he referred the case to the
Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari for trial.
17) We have also seen from the said records in original placed by Mr. Payeng that the
concerned Inquiry Officer after inquiry on 29.08.2010 submitted his report stating that during
enquiry it appeared to him that in a prima-facie manner that Musstt. Anuwara Khatun (petitioner)
was found to be a suspected illegal foreigner as she entered into India after 25.03.1971 without
any valid document. From the said record we have also seen that the Superintendent of Police on
08.09.2010 endorsed the said report dated 29.08.2010 of the Inquiry Officer with his conclusion
that it appeared to him in a prima facie manner that the suspect Musstt. Anuwara Khatun
(petitioner) is a foreigner who had entered into India illegally and hence the case be referred to
the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari for trial.
18) It is seen from the records that the interrogation/investigation/inquiry report of the
concerned Inquiry Officer relating to the petitioner, clearly indicates that she was found to be a
Page No.# 9/13
suspected illegal foreigner who had entered into India after 25.03.1971 without any valid
document and considering the said report, the concerned Superintendent of Police referred to the
Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari for trial.
19) While comparing with the Notice to the petitioner issued by the Foreigners TribunalBaksa
relating to the Foreigners TribunalCase No.42 Baksa/2019 dated 06.06.2019, in original, placed by
Mr. J Payeng, learned counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal and Home Department with that of the
original Notice Copy dated 06.06.2019 received by the petitioner that is placed by her counsel Mr.
Aman, it is seen that the original notice dated 06.06.2019 placed by Mr. Payeng reflects that it
contains the thumb impression of the petitioner, signature of witness and report of the concerned
process server with his signature wherein the period of "01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971"is found to
be struck off and the period "post 24.03.1971" is found to be tick marked, whereas in the Notice
Copy dated 06.06.2019 placed by Mr. Aman it is seen that it is a carbon copy of the Notice dated
06.06.2019 wherein the period of "01.01.1966 and 24.03.1971"appears to be underlined and the
period "post 24.03.1971" figured in it is found to be tick marked.
20) Again from the said original copy of the notice dated 06.06.2019 of the Foreigners Tribunal,
Baksa issued to the petitioner it can be seen that the petitioner by putting her thumb impression
received the copy of the said notice in presence of a witness, where the note of the process
server dated 21.06.2019 contents that on finding the person concerned in the address mentioned
in the saidnotice, its contents was explained to her, served the copy ( nokol) of the said notice
upon her obtaining her thumb impression in the notice and returned the same to the concerned
Tribunal.
21) From the Notice of the Case No.42 Baksa/2019 dated 06.06.2019 issued by the Foreigners
Tribunal, Baksa to the petitioner, in original, placed by Mr. Payeng as well as the Notice copy of
the said case placed by Mr. Aman for the petitioner, it is seen that both of them contents the
tribunal issued the said notice under Order 3 (1) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 asking
her to appear in person or by a concerned lawyer engaged by her before the said Tribunal on
29.06.2019 at 10:00 AM and to show cause supported by valid documents as admissible to prove
that she is not a foreigner/illegal migrant as required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
22) It was already considered in our Order dated 07.03.2024 passed in her writ petition WP(C)
No. 7467/2023 that the petitioner after receipt ofsaid Notice dated 06.06.2019 from the
Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa in Case No. 42/BAKSA/2019through her counsel submitted
Page No.# 10/13
Vakalatnama before the said Tribunal on 29.06.2019 and on said date the petitioner remained
absent before the Tribunal and her counsel sought time for her appearance and for filing of
written statement and document by her, which the learned Tribunal considered and fixed the case
on 22.07.2019.
23) On the dates fixed, i.e., on 22.07.2019 and 14.08.2019 the petitioner remained absent
before the tribunal and her counsel prayed for time for appearance of the petitioner, for filing of
written statement and document by her thatthe learned Tribunal considered and on 14.08.2019
the tribunal gave her last chance fixing the matter on 25.09.2019.
24) On 25.09.2019 and 21.10.2019, the dates fixed, the petitioner did not appear before the
Tribunal and remained absent and her counsel prayed for time for appearance of the petitioner,
for filing of written statement and document by her, whichthe learned Tribunal considered and
accordingly fixed the matter on the dates fixed, noted above, with the observation that failure on
her part to appear, file written statement and documents,the reference would be answered and
on 21.10.2019 the Tribunal fixed the matter on 18.11.2019.
25) On 18.11.2019 also the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal and remained absent
and her counsel prayed for time for appearance of the petitioner, for filing of written statement
and documents by her andthe learned Tribunal considered and accordingly fixed the matter on
23.12.2019 with the order that on 23.12.2019 failure on the part of the petitioner to appear, file
written statement and documents,the reference shall be answered.
26) Even on 23.12.2019 the petitioner remained absent before the Tribunal and after hearing
the Assistant Government Pleader the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa considered the fact that the
petitioner took several adjournments and she was given sufficient opportunities but she did not
take any effective steps. Considering the provision of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 as
the burden of proving as to whether the petitioner is or is not a foreigner lies upon her, which she
failed to prove before the Tribunal and voluntarily remained absent before it and that she did not
prove her Indian citizenship from the relevant period in spite of granting more than sufficient time
where the petitioner voluntarily did not file her written statement and documents, without
appearing before the said Tribunal personally in any of the dates when the said case was fixed,
therefore, the said Tribunal considered that it had no alternative and on 23.12.2019 passethe ex-
parte order declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into the territory of
India from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971 as she miserably failed to establish her
Page No.# 11/13
presence in India on or before 25.03.1971.Thereby, the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa by the said ex
parte order dated 23.12.2019 gave its opinion against the petitioner.
27) In catena of decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court settled the Law that against any such order
passed by a quasi-judicial authority like the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa in the case in hand, in a
writ petition filed by any aggrieved party against any such order passed by the Tribunal, the writ
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to consider the said order of the
Tribunal under the Writ of certiorari only, i.e., as to whether the order of the Tribunal is good or
bad in law. The Writ Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of certiorari is not required
to consider any such evidence which a party did not place before the Tribunal during its
adjudication.
28) In the case in hand the petitioner received the notice from the Foreigners Tribunal and in
spite of granting more than sufficient time, beyond the stipulated time as provided in the
Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the petitioner remained absent in the case and she neither
filed her written statement nor any documents to prove her Indian nationality.
29) It is seen that the petitioner though aware of the said proceeding against her pending
before the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa she did not even bother to know the outcome of the said
proceeding.It is only when she was taken into custody on 31.10.2023pursuant to the said order
dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa in said F.T. Case
No.42/BAKSA/2019 and she was kept in the detention camp at Matia, Goalpara, the petitioner
woke up from the deep slumber and filed the said WP(C) No. 7467/2023 on 19.12.2023
challenging the said ex parte order dated 23.12.2019 of the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa. noted
above.
30) After hearing the partiesand considering all those facts, more particularly that in spite of
granting opportunities, the petitioner did not avail her chance and that she had chosen to
approach the Writ Court only after she was taken in to custody that too after about four years of
the final order of the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa passed on 23.12.2019 in said F.T. Case
No.42/BAKSA/2019 and finding no such illegality in the said order of the Tribunal dated
23.12.2019, we dismissed the said Writ Petition,WP(C) No. 7467/2023 preferred by the petitioner
on 07.03.2024.
31) Though petitioner stated that she could not provide the Notice of the case dated
Page No.# 12/13
06.06.2019 issued by the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, but she was fully aware of it and was also in
possession of it, as she appeared before the said Tribunal on 29.06.2019 through her counsel in
the said F.T. Case No.42/BAKSA/2019 as noted above.
32) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was not aware of the
Annexure-3 (series) annexed to this review petition, but from the pages of the said annexure it
can be notice that those are photostat copies of certified copy, which was procured on 09.11.2023
as seen from page No. 101 of this petition, that is much before filing the said WP(C) No.
7467/2023 on 19.12.2023, by the petitioner.
33) We have considered the judgments cited by Mr. Aman on behalf of the petitioner, which
according to us are not applicable in the present case because of its facts and circumstances.
34) We found that the judgments cited by Mr. Payeng on behalf of the respondents are
applicable in the present case.
35) Considering entire aspects of the matter and hearing the parties, the Court did not find
any valid ground for review of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed earlier by this Court in WP(C)
No. 7467/2023 dismissing the said writ petition of the petitioner and upholding the order/opinion
of the Foreigners Tribunal, Baksa, dated 23.12.2019 passed in F.T. Case No.42/ BAKSA/2019.
36) We found that the grounds raised in this Review Petition did not establish any error
apparent on record to justify interference with the order dated 07.03.2024 passed earlier by this
Court in WP(C) No. 7467/2023 and warranting any review of the same.
37) Accordingly, this Review Petition is dismissed.
38) Return the respective records to A W Aman, learned counsel for the review petitioner/writ
petitioner and Mr. J Payeng, learned standing counsel, Home Department, Assam for the
respondent Nos. 3 & 5, as placed by them, noted above, obtaining their signatures with date,
after keeping scan copy of those documents.
JUDGE JUDGE
Page No.# 13/13
Comparing Assistant
