Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010145572025 2025:GAU-AS:12857-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./194/2025 MOKBUL ALI S/O LATE. MAHAMAD ALI, VILLAGE- JALUGUTI, JULAGAON, P.S- MORIGAON, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA REP. BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOK ROAD NEW DELHI -110001 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON ASSAM 5:FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL NO. 3RD MORIGAON ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) Page No.# 2/9 MORIGAON ASSAM 7:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE MORIGAON POLICE STATION ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : M M RAHMAN, MR. A R BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 17.09.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent.. 2. By filing this review petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) 2545/2025. The grounds for review are to the effect that the order impugned in this review petition is bad in law and on facts; that this Court did not consider the material evidence annexed to the writ petition; the issue of limitation could not have risen in the writ petition, though the writ petition is filed after four years; the Supreme Court of India in multiple cases has emphasized that procedural technicalities like limitation must yield to substantive justice where citizenship and civil liberties Page No.# 3/9 are involved and that the bar of limitation cannot be rigidly applied to deny access to justice; this Court had opined that the petitioner has no other supporting documents to prove his linkage with his father beyond the electoral roll of 1966, but the petitioner has several other linked documents which have now been annexed to the review petition. 3. In this review petition, the petitioner has cited the following cases: a. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224; b. Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320; c. State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, (1994) Supp (1) SCC 615; d. Union of India v. Gopal Dass, (2011) 12 SCC 695; e. Ranjit Rai v. State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 473; f. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665; g. Amina Khatun v. Union of India, (2021) SCC Online SC 864; h. Union of India V. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499; i. Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 4. After the matter was heard for some length, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for an adjournment so as to enable him to produce further documents to supplement the documents already produced and prays for further time also to present before this Court further case laws in support of his submissions. Obviously, as the matter has been heard at length, the said prayer was refused. 5. The prayer made in the review petition is opposed by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters. 6. The pin pointed question of the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner is to address as to how he would overcome the observations made by this Court in paragraph 12 of the order dated 25.05.2025, wherein observation Page No.# 4/9 was made on the power and jurisdiction of the Court while exercising certiorari jurisdiction and in this regard, the Court had referred to the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. V. Bikartan Das, 2023 INSC 733: (2023) 0 Supreme(SC) 763. 7. The supplementary question to the learned counsel for the petitioner was that does the Court have jurisdiction in a review petition to entertain documents which were neither produced before the learned Tribunal nor made a part of the review petition. In this regard, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court has ample power to consider additional documents in deciding the review petition. However, it may be stated that although several cases have been cited in the review petition, as referred above, the learned counsel for the petitioner gave no response in respect of the observations of this Court in paragraph 12 of the order dated 28.05.2025 passed in WP(C) 2545/2025. In this regard, the Court does not have to reiterate the paragraph 55 of the said case of Bikartan Das (supra), which is already quoted under paragraph 12 of the impugned order, referred above. 8. This Court while examining the matter in the said WP(C) 2545/2025, had referred to the examination-in-chief of cross-examination of DW-2 and compared it with the evidence tendered by the petitioner and the discrepancies that were noted had been referred to in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the said order dated 28.05.2025. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are certain discrepancies in the evidence of DW-1 and DW- 2, but he projects that those discrepancies were not material. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner having not been able to respond to the query of the Court regarding paragraph 12 of the order dated 28.05.2025 which refers to the jurisdiction of this Court in adjudicating a writ petition for Page No.# 5/9 the nature of certiorari, it is reiterated that the Court could not have the power to look into additional documents which were either to not produce before the Tribunal. Therefore, ground nos. 1 and 2 of this review of the petition cannot sustain this review petition. To overcome the observation of this Court on the delay in challenging the impugned opinion dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal as stated in ground no. 3 that the petitioner is an illiterate person having no knowledge about the order and he simply thought that the case has been finished on 31.08.2021 and it is further stated that due to poverty, the petitioner could not go to an advocate for proper legal assistance and “a poor person always avoids advocates to save money”. The said statement, in the opinion of the Court does not deserve any consideration in view of the fact that each and every district of the State of Assam does have District Legal Services Authority where free services are provided and duly advertised and clearly projected in all the District Courts. Therefore, as the petitioner is found to have presumed that the case is finished and did not go to a lawyer to take advice. Moreover, there is no explanation why the petitioner could not even speak to his own counsel who was conducting the case for him before the learned Tribunal and understand in what manner the case is disposed of. There is an admission on the part of the petitioner that he remained nonchalant and unconcerned with the nature of the opinion rendered, even though the issue before the Foreigners’ Tribunal was his citizenship. Accordingly, ground no. 3 does not warrant any consideration. 10. In view of the admission that the petitioner did not go to seek legal assistance, such an admission also demolishes the ground no. 4 of the review petition that procedural technicalities must lead to substantive justice. In this case, the petitioner though knowing that an opinion has been rendered on Page No.# 6/9 31.08.2021, did not take appropriate steps to safeguard her own citizenship or other civil liberties involved. The entertaining of the writ petitions at a belated stage cannot be given an imprimatur of the Court as if there is no duty on part of the litigant to explain why the delay had occurred in approaching the Court to assert his fundamental and legal rights. 11. Despite the Court refusing to examine documents annexed to the writ petition, which were not before the Tribunal, as held in the order dated 28.05.2025, once again the petitioner has annexed further documents to support ground no. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner in ground no. 5 that despite due diligence, the documents which are now annexed as Annexure- 2 to 8 in this review petition were not within his knowledge and could not be produced before the Tribunal for causes shown. Therefore, since there are limitations in the power of the writ Court while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, which are well laid down in the case of Bikartan Das (supra), the examination of further documents which is annexed to this writ petition be hit by the same principle of law. 12. In the review petition, the petitioner has referred to case of Lily Thomas (supra), regarding the ground under which the review is permissible. As stated hereinbefore, neither the petitioner has been able to disclose manifest error of the order of the Court nor have any reasons been assigned regarding new documents which are annexed to this writ petition. Therefore, the principle laid down in the case of Lily Thomas (supra), would not help the petitioner in any manner. 13. In the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra), the principle laid down in the said case is that the non-consideration of materials on record is a ground for review. As stated hereinbefore, no attempt has been made by the learned Page No.# 7/9 counsel for the petitioner to disclose which materials on record the Court had not considered. In this regard, we may again clarify that material on record in the cases where the opinion of the Tribunals are challenged, would only be referable to the records of the Tribunal and not any other documents which are annexed to the writ petition as those cannot be considered in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction and therefore, the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra), would not help the petitioner in any way. 14. The petitioner has also referred to the case of Khudiram Chakma (Supra). In the said case, facts are wholly dissimilar. The said judgment refers to the history of the creation of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, which was earlier a province under the State of Assam and was then refer to as North East Frontier Agency. It may be briefly mentioned that the historical fact is that about 56 families of Chakmas of erstwhile East Pakistan were given refugee status and were given shelter in the Government camp at Ledo in the district of Tinsukia and later on in 1966 they were shifted to a camp at Miao, within the present State of Arunachal Pradesh and it is in that context that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was being considered conjointly with Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 and it is in the said context that the Supreme Court of India arrived at its well-considered decision that by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganization) Act, 1971, territories of Arunachal Pradesh were excluded from the purview of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 and it is in the said distinguishable factual matrix that the issue relating to the case of Khudiram Chakma (supra) was appreciated by the Supreme Court of India. It would be appropriate to refer to paragraph 75 of the case of Khudiram Chakma (supra), which is quoted below: “75. It is true that fundamental right is available to a foreigner as held in Louis De Page No.# 8/9 Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554 at p. 562: "The next point taken on behalf of the petitioners, that the foreigners also enjoy some fundamental rights under the Constitution of this country, is also of not much help to them. The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(l)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country." 15. Therefore, although a reference is made to the law laid down in the case of Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144, 159, wherein the following statement was made, “citizenship is a most precious right”, yet the issue of citizenship was not gone into as could be found from paragraph 75 of the said order as quoted above, the issue was regarding the settlement of the Chakma Refugees and had nothing to do with consideration of the issue of citizenship within the meaning of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Accordingly, the said case also does not help the petitioner in any manner. The case of the Gopal Dass (supra) and Ranjit Rai (supra) cited in the review petition is also not applicable in the case of the petitioner due to their distinguishable facts on which those cases were decided. 16. Neither in the writ petition nor in the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner would demonstrate that the fundamental principle of burden of prove was ignored by this Court or that there was no procedural compliance and the issue of natural justice to the petitioner was not provided for either before the learned Tribunal or before the Court. Under such circumstances, the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), Amina Khatun (supra), and Meneka Gandhi (supra) does not come to the aid of the petitioner. The petitioner has also cited the case of Hindustan Development Corporation (supra) regarding legitimate expectation. In what manner the issue of legitimate expectation would help the petitioner is not spelt out in the review petitioner, Page No.# 9/9 nor addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the said case also does not help the petitioner in any manner. 17. No other submission was made before the Court. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this review petitioner. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant