Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010085052020 2025:GAU-AS:14354 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./68/2020 YAKUB ALI S/O SULTAN ALI, R/O VILL. DOLGAON,P.O. AND P.S. JAKHALABANDHA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF POLITICAL AND HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA NIRVACHAN BHAVAN NEW DELHI 4:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 5:THE STATE COORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTRAR OF CITIZEN (NRC) ASSAM GUWAHATI 6:THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTATION AUTHORITY (FRRA) NAGAON Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM. 7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM RETURNING OFFICER CUM DIST. ELECTION OFFICER- CUM ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER NAGAON P.O. JAKHALABANDHA AND DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782136 8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 7...... Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, F.T,SC, NRC,SC, ECI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.10.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC; Ms. P. Barua, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for respondent. 2. This review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2020, passed by this Court in WP(C) 7099/2019, thereby declining to interfere with the ex parte opinion dated 01.06.2005, passed by the learned Member, Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal, Nagaon, [IMDT, Nagaon for short], in I.M.(D).T Case No. 320/98(D). By the said Page No.# 3/7 opinion, the learned Tribunal had held that the petitioner is a illegal migrant under Section 3 (1) (c) of the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. 3. The said opinion of the I.M.(D).T, Nagaon was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by WP(C) 7099/2019, and as stated above, the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the contents of the review petition and the grounds on which this review petition has been filed, has submitted that the petitioner has several documents from which he could demonstrate that his father was the voter as per the voters list of 1970 and that the petitioner has HSLC examination admit card for the year 1998, which would establish his linkage with his father. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner has provided all the documents to the learned counsel, but the same was not submitted before the Tribunal. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner was never instructed by his learned counsel to give evidence or to produce witnesses to establish his defence. 5. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has in his custody the voters list of 1970 of his father and his admit card of the HSLC examination for the year 1998 and there is no reason not to provide the documents to his engaged counsel but none of those documents were filed before the learned Tribunal and no instructions was provided to the petitioner to give evidence in the case. In support of the submission that fault of the advocate the petitioner should not suffer, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of State of Assam Vs. Ganeshmal Maheswari, (1992) 1 GLR 146 and Laxmidhar Das Vs. State of Orissa and Ors., (2014) Supreme (Ori.) 390 to Page No.# 4/7 impress upon the Court that preventing of miscarriage of justice is a permissible ground for review and negligence on the part of the learned counsel representing the parties version may warrant a review of the judgment. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the FT and Borders matters has made his submissions in support of the order dated 24.01.2020, passed in WP(C) 7099/2019 and in support of the ex parte opinion dated 01.06.2005, passed by the IM(D)T, Nagaon. 7. On a perusal of the materials available on record, we take notice of the fact that in the proceedings of IM(D)T Case No. 320/98(D) notice to the petitioner was issued by order dated 15.02.1999 and as the petitioner did not appear by order dated 25.03.1999, the case was fixed for ex parte hearing. However, on appearance of the petitioner, by order dated 05.05.1999, the order to proceed ex parte against the petitioner was re-called and the written statement was accepted. It appears that thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 37 (thirty seven) occasions between 23.07.1999 and 06.04.2005 and by order dated 06.04.2005, the case was fixed for final argument, which was heard by order dated 28.04.2005 and thereafter the impugned ex parte opinion was passed on 01.06.2005. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the writ petition it has been proected that the relevant instruction that were made available to the learned counsel engaged before the learned Tribunal, was not clearly placed before the learned Tribunal, for which the petitioner has suffered irreparable prejudice. Accordingly, it is submitted that not only the petitioner case before the Tribunal could not be correctly projected but even Page No.# 5/7 in this Court correct state of affairs was not properly disclosed. 9. Accordingly, it appears that the main thrust of the petitioner in this review petition is that the instructions as provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner before the IM(D)T as well before this Court in connection with the writ petition were not properly presented. 10. The Court is unable to accept the contention as presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that statement made in the writ petition is supported by an affidavit and the said affidavit in support of the writ petition contains and endorsement by the Notary Public, certifying that the Notary had read over and explained the contents to the declarant and the declarant seems to perfectly understand then. 11. Resultantly, if the contents of the writ petition was read out to the petitioner and he had accepted before the Notary Public that he had understood the contents, in the considered opinion of the Court, would not constitute a good ground for interference with the order under review. 12. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that the before the learned Tribunal that he had presenting himself as witness before the learned Tribunal rather it is observed that in most of the dates the petitioner was absent. Accordingly, it cannot be accepted that merely because the documents were provided to the learned counsel, he could lead evidence on behalf of the petitioner even when the petitioner was absent. 13. Resultantly, we find no ground to hold that for any reason whatsoever the order of this Court dated 24.01.2020, passed in WP(C) 7099/2019, is vitiated for any reason whatsoever in light of the prescription of Page No.# 6/7 Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 14. In the case of Ganesmal Maheswari (supra), the facts are distinguishable because the writ petition was heard in the absence of the Govt. Advocate and the reserve judgment was delivered on 19.07.1991. However, the State in the review application could demonstrate the para-wise comments were made available to the Office of the Senior Govt. Advocate and the accordingly, this Court had accepted that the version of the State was not presented due lapse in the Office of the Senior Govt. Advocate. In this case, the petitioner was required to appear during the trial before the IM(D)T and as the records reveals that the petitioner was absent on most of the dates, ratio of the case of Ganesmal Maheswari (supra), could not be attracted in the present case in hand. 15. For the same reason, the decision in the Case of Laxmidhar Das (supra), will also not be attracted as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the fault on part of the advocate in conducting the case before the learned Tribunal. Rather, the Tribunal had been very liberal in granting adjournments in the present case thereby giving more than 4 (four) years time for the petitioner to adduce evidence, but the opportunities so granted by the learned Tribunal was neglected by the petitioner. 16. Resultantly, the Court of the considered opinion that no ground were made out for interference with the order of this Court dated 24.01.2020, passed in WP(C) 7099/2019. Accordingly, the review petition is found devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. 17. There shall be no order as to cost. Page No.# 7/7 18. The learned standing counsel for the Home Department shall transmit a copy of the order to the Home and Political (B) Department so to transmit the same to the concerned Tribunal having the records. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant