JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. appearing for respondent nos. 4 & 7. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Asstt. SGI for respondent No.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent No.2, Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent No.5 and Ms. K. Phookan, learned State Counsel, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 6. 2. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.4139/2019 by which the petitioner had challenged the ex-parte order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in F.T.(D) Case No.1388/2007 declaring him a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. The said writ petition was rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner in spite of giving proper opportunity to appear before the Tribunal on several occasions did not appear, thus, forfeiting his right to contest the claim that he is an Indian. 3. It has been submitted by Ms. Ghosh that unfortunately though the notice was served to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal on several occasions but on the assigned date, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Tribunal because of his financial hardships. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the petitioner could not engage a counsel due to lack of financial resources. Further, the petitioner was unable to collect his relevant documents at that time, which have been annexed to the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that otherwise the petitioner has sufficient valid documents to prove that he is an Indian and not a foreigner. Further, it has also been submitted that at the time of inquiry by the verification officer, the review petitioner had furnished all the relevant voters list of 1970 where the name of the petitioner’s projected father Prafulla Das appeared which will conclusively prove that he is a citizen of India by virtue of being the son of the said Prafulla Das, who had cast his vote in the year 1970. Unfortunately, as the petitioner could not produce these documents before the Tribunal, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. Unfortunately, as the petitioner could not produce these documents before the Tribunal, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. It has been submitted that under the circumstances, the review petitioner may be given another opportunity to prove those documents and to contest the claim that he is not a foreigner, but in fact an Indian. Ms. D. Ghosh submits that the reference ought not to have been made by the referral authority considering the documents which were made available before the inquiring officer. 5. On the other hand, Mr. N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. has vehemently opposed this review petition on the ground that the order passed by this Court on 11.11.2019 would clearly indicate that 5 (five) occasions i.e. 28.01.2011, 15.03.2011, 12.05.2011, 11.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 were afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal, however, the petitioner remained absent on those days without taking any steps, and, as such, the petitioner had failed to remain alert due to the negligence on his part. As such, the petitioner has to be blame himself for the situation he has been placed in now inasmuch, as it is the obligation of the petitioner to discharge his burden cast under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian which he failed to do so. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, F.T. submits that under the above circumstances, as also held by this Court, no irregularity has been committed by the learned Tribunal so as to warrant review by this Court. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, F.T., that this Court had dismissed the writ petition in the year 2019 and as such, an enormous delay has taken place in filing this review writ petition. 8. In response, Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that after dismissal of the writ petition by the Division Bench of this Court, she approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted leave to the petitioner to approach this Court again and accordingly, some delay has occurred in filing this review petition, which is not intentional or deliberate. 9. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are not strictly applicable in a proceeding before a Foreigners Tribunal, nevertheless, the well-settled principles, which are codified in the CPC, can be invoked in a proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal which is quasi judicial body. Thus, even if the provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable, the principles underlying the concept of review can also be applicable in a proceeding before a Foreigners Tribunal. 10. It is one of the contentions of the petitioner that though the review petitioner after receipt of notice had appeared before the Tribunal, but because of acute financial hardships, the review petitioner could not engage a counsel to be represented before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the review petitioner was not able to collect the relevant documents at the relevant time, which the review petitioner could collect at the subsequent stage. 11. It is now well-settled that review is maintainable when there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence by the applicant, could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. 12. In the present case, it has been submitted that apart from the voters list of 1970 in the name of petitioner’s parents, there are documents/ land revenue receipts to show possession of land by his father, which would indicate that the petitioner’s parents were already land holders and residents of this country. Moreover, the certificate issued by the village Headman could not be procured at the relevant time. In our opinion, these documents would be relevant for determining citizenship of the review petitioner. 13. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that there was no material for the Referral Authority to refer the case of the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal, we have examined the original records. 14. In our opinion, these documents would be relevant for determining citizenship of the review petitioner. 13. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that there was no material for the Referral Authority to refer the case of the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal, we have examined the original records. 14. In the original records, it is seen that in the Verification Officer’s Report, it has been mentioned that the father of the petitioner is registered as an elector and his name appears in the voters list of 83 Buraburi (1970) LAC, Part No.2 at Serial No.640 in the State of Assam. Though it appears from the enquiry report that initially there was a remark that no document was furnished, the said remark was crossed out, which means that the petitioner might have been able to produce some documents to show that he is an Indian. 15. Be that as it may, we have also noted that the column whether he had migrated into Assam and when have been kept blank. 16. We have also observed that there is no finding of the Verification Officer that the petitioner is suspected to be a foreigner who had migrated into Assam from Bangladesh. 17. It appears that though the certified copy of the electoral roll of 1970 was submitted to the Enquiry Officer, yet, the Superintendent of Police in his opinion stated that during enquiry, no document in support of the nationality of the petitioner could be produced and the suspect entered into India after 25.03.1971. 18. We are of the view that such a reference made by the Referral Authority is not based on record. On that ground, we are of the view that the reference was not made by the Referral Authority with proper application of mind. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Moslem Mondal and Anr., 2013 (1) GLT 809 in which the importance of proper reference by the Referral Authority has been highlighted. Para 98 of Moslem Mondal(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow, “98. The reference by the referral authority also cannot be mechanical. The referral authority has to apply his mind on the materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation and make the reference on being satisfied that there are grounds for making such reference. Para 98 of Moslem Mondal(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow, “98. The reference by the referral authority also cannot be mechanical. The referral authority has to apply his mind on the materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation and make the reference on being satisfied that there are grounds for making such reference. The referral authority, however, need not pass a detailed order recording his satisfaction. An order agreeing with the investigation would suffice. The referral authority also, while making the reference, shall produce all the materials collected during investigation before the Tribunal, as the Tribunal is required prima facie to satisfy itself about the existence of the main grounds before issuing the notice to the proceedee.” 19. Be that as it may, since we are remanding the matter for reconsideration, the petitioner would be permitted to raise this plea as regards the validity of the reference made by the Referral Authority, which shall be considered by the Tribunal as a preliminary issue and if it is found that the reference was not validly made, the question of considering the matter by the Tribunal does not arise inasmuch as the Tribunal gets its jurisdiction only when a valid reference is made and not otherwise. 20. Under the circumstances, we are of the view even if that there has been some delay on the part of the review petitioner in approaching this Court, because of his inability to engage a counsel because of financial hardships, we may entertain this petition. 21. We have taken into consideration the fact that opinion of the Tribunal will ultimately determine the citizenship status of the review petitioner for the reason that if the Tribunal holds that the review petitioner is not an Indian, certainly, it will be treated so by the authorities concerned. On the other hand, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that he is an Indian, as claimed by him, certainly, no adverse action can be taken against him. As such, keeping in mind the importance and significance of citizenship of a person which will be virtually decided on the basis of the opinion of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the review petitioner may be afforded another opportunity to appear before the Tribunal and prove that he is an Indian and not a foreigner on the basis of the evidences that may be adduced before the Tribunal. 22. 22. Accordingly and for the reasons discussed above, we allow this petition by recalling the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.4139/2019. 23. Though under the normal circumstances, when the said order of this Court is recalled, the matter is to be re-heard on merit, yet, in our opinion, undertaking such exercise will only prolong the proceeding and proceed to examine the validity of the order passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we set aside the impugned opinion dated 09.08.2011 rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal (1st), Morigaon in FT(D) Case No.1388/2007 and afford the review petitioner another opportunity to appear before the Tribunal to prove that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India. 24. The review petitioner will accordingly, appear before the Tribunal within a month from today and file necessary supporting documents in support of his claim that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India. The Tribunal, after hearing the review petitioner and appreciating the evidences that may be adduced by him, will pass a fresh opinion as regards his citizenship status. 25. However, as discussed above, the Tribunal before giving its opinion about the citizenship of the petitioner, will first decide as to the issue regarding the validity of the reference made by the Referral Authority, inasmuch as, if it is found that no proper/valid reference was made, there cannot be any proceeding against the petitioner. If it is found that there was no proper reference or no proper application of mind by the referral authority, the reference has to be set aside. If that is so, the proceedings against the petitioner before the Tribunal has to be quashed and petitioner cannot be proceeded any further. 26. The review petitioner shall remain on bail in terms of the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in this review petition till culmination of the proceeding before the Tribunal. 27. The review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.