GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 25 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 25:
1. Heard Mr. M. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant/review petitioner, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters, Mr. KK Parasar CGC for respondent No.1, Mr. G. Sarma Standing Counsel NRC, Mr. HK Hazarika Government Advocate for the State and Mr. H. Kuli for the Election Commission of India.
[2.] Both the Interlocutary Application as well as the Review Petition are being disposed of by this common order. The I.A is filed seeking condonation of 2417 days delay in filing the Review Petition against the order dated 23.05.2018, passed in WP(C)/6719/2016. The only reason for the delay according to the applicant is due to poverty. The applicant along with other labourers went to Kerala for earning money and got engaged in a company. They were not paid regularly and hence after a few months they wanted to come back but the company did not allow them to leave the work on the ground that a huge amount of advance money for 5(five) years had been taken by their leader and therefore, he was not allowed to leave the company. The applicant therefore could not come back for 5(five) years and when he eventually did, he came back with an empty hand. Therefore, he was able to file the review petition only after a delay of 2417 days. According to him as the reason for the delay is due to bonafide reasons, the delay may be condoned.
[3.] Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, FT matters submits that no documents has been annexed by the applicant/petitioner in support of his explanation and therefore, the explanation for the delay being cryptic cannot be accepted. He submits that even on merit, no grounds for review has been made out by the petitioner.
[4.] We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have noticed that not only has the applicant failed to annex any documents in support of his version but he has also failed to explain the delay with relevant particulars such as, the time when left for Kerala, the reference of the company where he worked etc. He has also not mentioned when he came back from Kerala and how he was ultimately able to file the review petition. Notwithstanding, such deficit in the material particulars and explanations with supporting documents, we proceed to examine the review petition on merit as well.
[5.] As already stated, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 23.05.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C)/6719/2016. It may be stated herein that the Foreigners Tribunal, Bongaigaon No.2 at Abhayapuri vide order dated 23.09.2016 in BNGN/FT/Case No.3909/2007 (State Vs. Md.LaluMiya) had declared the petitioner to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) from Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had filed the writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2018, by coming to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and failed to prove that he was not a foreigner but a citizen of India and thus the writ petition was dismissed.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqI08gU6pkSAM7ImY4tkUezT1DLfmYoxpgVMhNUEsAPAf&caseno=Review.Pet./15716/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010276662024&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
