JUDGMENT : SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J. 1. This Review Petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2020 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3858/2020 which was preferred by the review petitioner before a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court. By the said writ petition, the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati in F.T. Case No. 119/2017 was put to challenge. The Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati vide order dated 24.08.2018 passed in F.T. Case No. 119/2017 answered the reference in respect of the review petitioner in affirmative and holding that the review petitioner was a migrant who had entered India from Bangladesh illegally after 24th of March, 1971. The said opinion was put to challenge by way of a writ petition. The writ court vide Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2020 dismissed the writ petition filed by the review petitioner and declining to interfere with the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati in F.T. Case No. 119/2017. 2. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2020 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3858/2020 on the following grounds: “GROUNDS (A) For that the Hon’ble Court rightly held that in the voter list of the year 1966, 1970, 2011 and 2016 shows that petitioner and his family members are the resident of village Bowali but only the voter list of the year 1997 the residential village of the petitioner reflects as Khopatia. The Hon’ble Court also held that though the statement of the shifting his village didn’t mention in the written statement but it is mentioned in evidence-in-chief. Hence there is no gross mistake on the part of the petitioner regarding his statement of shifting his village as he made the statement of shifting of his village in his evidence-in-chief. As such there is error apparent on the face of the order dated 07.10.2020 and it is liable to be reviewed. Hence there is no gross mistake on the part of the petitioner regarding his statement of shifting his village as he made the statement of shifting of his village in his evidence-in-chief. As such there is error apparent on the face of the order dated 07.10.2020 and it is liable to be reviewed. (B) For that the Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate to the fact that petitioner clearly made statement in his written statement that his father’s actual name is Abdur Rahman and the petitioner also said in his cross examination that his father’s name is Abdur Rahman and also made clear statement in evidence in chief that some of the voterlist his father’s name appears as A. Rahman and some of it appears as Abdur Rahman, Abdur Rahman Sheikh and all are the name of same and one person i.e. his father. The Hon'ble Court also failed to appreciate the Voterlist of the year 2011 and 2016 of the petitioner wherein it is clearly reflected that the father’s name of the petitioner is Abdur Rahman but the Hon’ble Court only mentioned one voterlist i.e. the voterlist of the 1997 wherein the father’s name of the petitioner reflected as A. Rahman the short form of Abdur Rahman and hence it cannot be put any doubt that Abdur Rahman and A. Rahman is not same and one person i.e. the father of the petitioner. Hence there is error apparent on the face of the order dated 07.10.2020 and it is liable to be reviewed without causing any impediment to serve justice. (C) For that the Hon’ble Court while deciding the case glossed over the Voter List of 1960 and 1966 (Annexure No. 1 and 2) produced by the petitioner which reflects the name of his grandfather as well as his father and the aforesaid vital document cannot be ruled out insofar as it sufficiently establishes the link of the petitioner with his father. Therefore the Order dated 07.10.2020 is liable to be reviewed. (D) For that the Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner exhibited sufficient documents which substantiates his claim of being a bona-fide citizen of India. Hence, the Order dated 07.10.2021 is liable to be reviewed for the ends of justice. Therefore the Order dated 07.10.2020 is liable to be reviewed. (D) For that the Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner exhibited sufficient documents which substantiates his claim of being a bona-fide citizen of India. Hence, the Order dated 07.10.2021 is liable to be reviewed for the ends of justice. (E) For that the Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate the fact that discrepancy of names cannot be a sole ground to cast aside entire evidence and decide the fate of an individual by harping on such discrepancies which are apparently present in most cases. Therefore, the Order dated 07.10.2021 is liable to be reviewed. (F) For that in any view of the matter the Order dated 07.10.2021 is liable to be reviewed.” 3. In order to appreciate the grounds urged for review of the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the writ court in W.P. (C) No. 3858/2020, it is necessary to refer to the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati in F.T. Case No. 119/2017 and the case projected before the Foreigners’ Tribunal by the review petitioner. 4. Before the Tribunal, the review petitioner exhibited as many as 12 (twelve) documents in support of his case: (i) Exhibit-A - NRC details in the name of one Abdul Rahman, son Babur All, projected as the father of the petitioner, of village Kadamtoli, P.S. South Salmara. (ii) Exhibit-B - Final Khatian of land covered by Khatian No. 219 of village Bowali II Part, issued in the name of petitioner’s projected grandfather Babur Ali Shikh. (iii) Exhibit-C - Voter List of 1960 in the name of one Tobarak All, son of Momir Sheikh, Babur All, son of Momir Sheikh under 31 Mankachar LAC. (iv) Exhibit-D - Voter List of 1966 in the name of petitioner’s projected father Abdur Rahan Sheikh, son of Babur Ali, of village 252 No. Bowali. (v) Exhibit-E - Voter List of 1970 in the name of one Abdur Rahan Sheikh, son of Babur All; Ahimon Bibi, wife of Baburali and Hasarjan Bibi, wife of Abdur Rahman, projected as the father, grandmother and mother of the petitioner, of village 252 No. Bowali. (v) Exhibit-E - Voter List of 1970 in the name of one Abdur Rahan Sheikh, son of Babur All; Ahimon Bibi, wife of Baburali and Hasarjan Bibi, wife of Abdur Rahman, projected as the father, grandmother and mother of the petitioner, of village 252 No. Bowali. (vi) Exhibit-F - Voter List of 1977 in the name of one A. Rahan, son of Babur; Rahimon Bibi, wife of Babur and Hasarbhan Bibi, wife of A. Rahman, projected as the father, grandmother and mother of the petitioner, of village 252 No, Bowali. (vii) Exhibit-G - Voter List of 1997 in the name of the petitioner Moslem Uddin, son of A. Rahman and Roshena Bibi, wife of Moslem, of village 285 Khopati Part-III. (viii) Exhibit-H - Voter List of 2011 in the name of the petitioner Moslem Uddin, son of Abdur Rahman and Roshena Bibi, wife of Moslem, of village 285 No. Bowali Part-II. (ix) Exhibit-I - Voter List of 2016 in the name of the petitioner Moslem Uddin, son of Abdur Rahman and Roshena Bibi, wife of Moslem of village 285 No. Bowali Part-III. (x) Exhibit-J - Elector Photo Identity Card issued in the name of the petitioner’s projected father Abdur Rahman, son of Babur Ali. (xi) Exhibit-K - Elector Photo Identity Card issued in the name of petitioner Moslem Uddin, son of Abdur Rahman. (xii) Exhibit-L - Gaon Panchayat Certificate issued on 08.08.2017 in the name of the petitioner Moslem Uddin, son of Abdur Rahman, of village Kadamtoli. 5. On the basis of these exhibits before the Tribunal, the petitioner sought to dispel the allegation that he is an illegal migrant and not an Indian citizen. The petitioner projected one Babur Ali as his grandfather, one Abdur Rahman @ Abdul Rahman @ A. Rahman as his father. He projected one Ahimon Bibi as his grandmother and Hasarjan Bibi @ Hasarbhan Bibi as his mother. He contended before the Tribunal that they are (10) ten siblings-(7) seven brothers and (3) three sisters. He further stated that he along with his family, parents and uncles live in a village Kadamtoli under Sukchar P.S. He casted his vote for the first time in 1991 at Kopati, Part-III. 6. He contended before the Tribunal that they are (10) ten siblings-(7) seven brothers and (3) three sisters. He further stated that he along with his family, parents and uncles live in a village Kadamtoli under Sukchar P.S. He casted his vote for the first time in 1991 at Kopati, Part-III. 6. The Tribunal upon examination of the exhibits as well as the written statements filed, held that from the exhibits that it was not possible to ascertain that the person named, Abdur Rahman or Ang Rahman, son of Babur or Babur Ali in the Voter’s List of 1966, 1970 and 1977 is the same person as Ang Rahman or Abdur Rahman, father of Moslem Uddin in the Voter’s List of 1997, 2011 and 2016. The Tribunal accordingly answered the reference in affirmative and opined that the petitioner is a foreigner, who has entered Assam illegally from Bangladesh after 24th March, 1971. 7. Since it was urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the W.P. (C) No. 3858/2020 was dismissed by the Writ Court without even calling for the records, the Tribunal records were called for, which were also duly examined. It is urged by the review petitioner that the writ Court erred in dismissing the writ petition as it failed to take note of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sirajul Hoque vs. State of Assam and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 534 . According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner minor discrepancies in the name ought not to be used as a ground to reject the documents exhibited in support of the proceeded. According to the review petitioner he had presented sufficient documents in support of his case which however were rejected by the Tribunal in view of minor discrepancies noticed in the particulars. It is submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that it was not possible to ascertain that the person named, Abdur Rahman or Ang Rahman, son of Babur or Babur Ali in the Voter’s List of 1966, 1970 and 1977 is the same person named as Ang Rahman or Abdur Rahman, father of Moslem Uddin in the Voter’s List of 1997, 2011 and 2016, is erroneous and contrary to the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Sirajul Hoque (Supra), as the Tribunal arrived at the said finding by declining to ignore the minor discrepancies in the name. It is further submitted that the land document, namely, the Exhibit ‘B’ was also not taken into account by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the review petitioner also sought to project that the person against whom the reference is made before the Tribunal and the proceeded/review petitioner are two different persons and therefore, the order dated 24.08.2018 being erroneous, the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the writ Court is required to be reviewed and recalled and the matter be heard a fresh, giving adequate opportunity to the review petitioner of being heard. 9. Mr. A. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Foreigner’ Tribunal has strongly opposed the contentions of the review petitioner. It is submitted that there is no error in the order passed in the writ petition and as such the same does not call for any review. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel would argue that the review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a re-hearing of the matter in the guise of a review petition. The same is therefore not maintainable and ought to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2020 and the review petition has been filed on 13th August, 2020. There is no explanation by the review petitioner as to why the review has been sought for after more than 10 months of the writ petition being dismissed. As such, it is submitted that there is no merit in the review petition and the same ought to be dismissed at the threshold. 10. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record have been duly perused. Judgment of the Writ Court as well as the Foreigners’ Tribunal records called for have also been perused. 11. The writ Court held that the father of the petitioner projected is shown as one Abdur Rahman of village-Kadamtoli from the NRC details. In the Voter’s list of 1977 and 1997 the name of the petitioner’s projected father appeared as A.R. Rahan and A. Rahman respectively. In the Voter’s list of 1997, 2011 and 2016, the petitioner’s name is recorded as a voter of village 285 No. Bowali Part-III. The Voter’s list of 1996, 1970, 1977, 2011 and 2016 show that the petitioner and his family are residents of village-Bowali whereas Voter’s list of 1997 reflects that the petitioner is a resident of village-Khopati. In the Voter’s list of 1997, 2011 and 2016, the petitioner’s name is recorded as a voter of village 285 No. Bowali Part-III. The Voter’s list of 1996, 1970, 1977, 2011 and 2016 show that the petitioner and his family are residents of village-Bowali whereas Voter’s list of 1997 reflects that the petitioner is a resident of village-Khopati. The shifting of the petitioner from the original village Kadamtoli to Bowali is not mentioned in the written statements. Although a statement to that effect is made in evidence-in-chief but without any supporting evidences. It was further recorded that the name of the petitioner’s projected father is recorded as A. Rahman of village- Khopati, but in the Voter’s List of 1966 and 1970, the name of his father is projected as Abdur Rahman of village-Bowali. It was held by the writ Court that there was no endeavour by the petitioner to show that Abdur Rahman Sheikh of Voter’s list 1966 and 1970 of village-Bowali and A. Rahman of Voter’s list 1997 of village-Khopati are one and the same person. On these grounds the writ Court did not find any occasion to interfere with the opinion dated 24.08.2018 rendered by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati in F.T. Case No. 119/2017. 12. In the exhibits which were presented before the Tribunal it is seen that exhibit ’L’ was the Gaon Panchayat certificate issued on 08.08.2017, which was presented by the review petitioner before the Tribunal in support of his contentions. However, the said certificate was not proved and therefore, correctly not relied upon by the Tribunal. The NRC details exhibited as exhibit ‘A’ also cannot be relied upon for the purposes of proving the citizenship of the proceeded, namely, the review petitioner as has been held in W.P. (C) No. 6443/2017 (Ahitan Nessa vs. Union of India). In so far as exhibit ‘B’ is concerned, which is the Final Khatian of Land covered by Khatian No. 219 of village Bowali II part, district Goalpara which the petitioner relied upon to support his contentions about the name of his grandfather, namely, Babur Ali Sheikh, the said document was also not proved before the Tribunal. 13. From the order of the Tribunal it is seen that the petitioner had stated before the Tribunal that they are 10 (ten) siblings-7 (seven) brothers and 3 (three) sisters. 13. From the order of the Tribunal it is seen that the petitioner had stated before the Tribunal that they are 10 (ten) siblings-7 (seven) brothers and 3 (three) sisters. He also stated that he has 8 children and a wife. However, there is no explanation as to why the review petitioner as a proceeded before the Tribunal, could not present a single witness to support his contentions inspite of having a large family and several relatives. 14. Even during the course of the hearing of the Review Petition, upon pointed queries made to the learned counsel to that effect, no satisfactory explanation came from the learned counsel for the review petitioner as to why no witnesses were presented in support of the review petitioner even though he claimed before the Tribunal that he had a large family. There was no explanation as to why the Voter’s list of 1991 was not presented before the Tribunal or before the Writ Court even though it was contended before the Foreigners’ Tribunal that the petitioner had voted for the first time in 1991. No supporting documents/evidences could be furnished by the review petitioner in support of its contentions that they had shifted from village-Bowali to village-Khopati and then back to village-Bowali again. No such statement is found in the pleadings including the pleadings which were filed before the Tribunal. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Sirajul Hoque (Supra) which is strongly relied upon by the review petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case as the discrepancies are not restricted to the name of the relatives of the petitioner alone. In the present proceedings there are discrepancies with regard to the villages in which the petitioner claimed to have resided and had voted from. We find it is correctly recorded by the writ Court that no such statement is made in the written statements baring a statement given in evidence-in-chief before this Tribunal. 15. It is necessary in this context to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : “26. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. 15. It is necessary in this context to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 : “26. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” The said view has been reiterated by this Court in the full Bench Judgment rendered in Moslem Mondal case. 16. In State of Assam and Others vs. Moslem Mondal and Others, (2013) 1 GLT 809 a full Bench of this Court has extensively laid down the manner and procedure of appreciation of evidence in matters relating to citizenship and where opinions are required to be rendered by Foreigners’ Tribunal. It is held by this Court that the burden of proof is on the proceeded to project that the reference made against him is incorrect. It has also been held by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6443/2017 (Ahitan Nessa vs. Union of India) that NRC details cannot be used as a valid piece of evidence to accept the citizenship of any proceeded. 17. It has also been held by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6443/2017 (Ahitan Nessa vs. Union of India) that NRC details cannot be used as a valid piece of evidence to accept the citizenship of any proceeded. 17. In Moslem Mondal (supra), it is held that the petitioner will have to take every step in order to proof the evidences he projects in support of his case. Upon careful perusal of the Tribunal records, we find that the proceeded/ review petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proof in support of his contentions that he is an Indian Citizen and not an illegal migrant. 18. The law as enunciated in Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 and followed in State of Assam and Others vs. Moslem Mondal and Others, (2013) 1 GLT 809 clearly lays down that the procedure for adducing evidences before the Foreigners Tribunal would be squarely upon the proceeded. It will be the responsibility of the proceeded to support all facts presented and statements made by adducing adequate evidences till the burden is discharged. Mere statements of facts presented in support of his case by the proceeded cannot be said to be proved unless the burden is satisfactorily discharged by the proceeded. 19. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has not been able to point out any error which is apparent on the face of the record and which requires correction. We also find that the Judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent that the delay has to be sufficiently explained may not be applicable in the facts of the present case in view of subsequent Judgments rendered by the Apex Court which hold that the High Court being a constitutional Court is a Court of record and therefore, any error which may apparent on the face of the record in any proceeding. The High Court by invoking its inherent powers, can always pass adequate orders to correct such errors that appear to be apparent on the face of the record. In the present proceedings however, we do not find any such error which is apparent on the face of the record and which requires any correction by invoking our review jurisdiction. 20. The High Court by invoking its inherent powers, can always pass adequate orders to correct such errors that appear to be apparent on the face of the record. In the present proceedings however, we do not find any such error which is apparent on the face of the record and which requires any correction by invoking our review jurisdiction. 20. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another vs. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674 , the parameters under which review jurisdiction is to be exercised has been very lucidly laid down by the Apex Court. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: “A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different Counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the Court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge backlog of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for Counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as Counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 21. It appears that the review petitioner has sought for a fresh hearing of the matter in the guise of a review. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 21. It appears that the review petitioner has sought for a fresh hearing of the matter in the guise of a review. It is a settled law that a review is ordinarily permissible only for correction of any error apparent on the face of the record and/or for the ends of justice. We find no such error nor was any such error pointed out by the petitioner. 22. In view of all the above, we find no merit in the review petition and the same is therefore dismissed. 23. LCR received is returned back to the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Kamrup (M), 2nd, Guwahati. No order as to cost.