JUDGMENT : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. M.K. Choudhury. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for FT and Border matters; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for NRC; Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate and Mr. H. Kuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the Election Commission of India. 2) By filing this review petition, the petitioner, namely, Abdur Rashid, who was declared to be a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 from Bangladesh vide opinion dated 30.09.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners th Tribunal 5 , Morigaon, in Case No. F.T.(D) 226/2015, has prayed for review of the order dated 27.09.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7413/2016, by which the writ petition, challenging the said opinion was dismissed. 3) For the purpose of this order, it would suffice to mention that on receipt of notice of the proceedings before the learned Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner had appeared and filed his written statement. Thereafter, in support of his defence, the petitioner had examined himself As DW-1 and had exhibited the following documents, viz., (1) Certified copy of voter list of 1965 as Ext.Ka; (2) Certified copy of voter list of 1970 as Ext.Kha; (3) Copy of NRC of 1951 as Ext.Ga; (4) Photocopy of NRC legacy data as Ext.Ga, (5) High School Leaving Certificate Examination passed certificate of 1983 as Ext.Gha; (6) Chita for surveyed village as Ext.Unga; (7) Jamabandi as Ext.Cha; (8) Voter ID Card as Ext.Chha; (9) Certified copy of voter list of 2005 as Ext.Jha; (10) Admit Card of HSLC Examination of 1983 as Ext.Jhha; (11) Xerox copy of voter list of 1965 as Ext.Niya; (12) Xerox copy of voter list of 1970 as Ext.Ta; (13) Sale Deed as Ext.Tha; (14) Revenue Paying receipt as Ext.Da; and (15) Certified copy of voter list of 1989 as Ext.Da. It may be mentioned that without any pleadings in his written statement, by way of his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had taken a plea that he was not the son of Kamaluddin [also spelt by the petitioner as Kamal Uddin], as referred in the notice, but his father was Late Abdul Rejak. It may be mentioned that without any pleadings in his written statement, by way of his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner had taken a plea that he was not the son of Kamaluddin [also spelt by the petitioner as Kamal Uddin], as referred in the notice, but his father was Late Abdul Rejak. However, the said plea was rejected and on examining the statements made in the written statement and evidence tendered by the petitioner, by a reasoned discussion, disbelieved that the petitioner was not the son of Kamaluddin and therefore, the reference was answered in favour of the State and against the petitioner and it was held vide opinion dated 30.09.2016, that the petitioner was a foreigner. 4) Thereupon, the petitioner had filed a review petition before the th Foreigners Tribunal 5 , Morigaon, purportedly by invoking Section 151 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , which was registered as Misc. Case No. 33/2016 [in Ref: F.T.(D) 226/2015], inter alia, stating that the petitioner is the son of Kamal Uddin and not the son of Abdul Rejak, and further projecting that due to the fault of his advocate, he could not produce documents in support of his defence and did not make all the disclosures in his written statement and accordingly, the petitioner had prayed, inter alia, for allowing him to file additional written th statement and for a fresh hearing. The learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 5 , Morigaon, while dismissing the said review petition by order dated 11.11.2016, observed that the petitioner was a literate person holding degree of Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) and the negligence in correcting his father’s name in the case cannot be taken lightly. 5) The said opinion dated 30.09.2016 and the order dated 11.11.2016, was unsuccessfully assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7413/2016. In respect of the plea of the petitioner, disowning Kamal Uddin as his father, vide order dated 19.03.2018, this Court had requested the Board of Secondary Education, Assam [SEBA for brevity], to undertake a verification exercise as to genuineness of the admit card and to submit a report. It would be now appropriate to extract the observations and finding of the Court in respect of the plea of the petitioner, disowning Kamal Uddin as his father. Paragraph nos. It would be now appropriate to extract the observations and finding of the Court in respect of the plea of the petitioner, disowning Kamal Uddin as his father. Paragraph nos. 26 to 32 of the order dated 27.09.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7413/2016 are quoted below for ready reference:- “26. On 26.04.2018, Mr. D. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for SEBA submitted that the admit card issued in the name of the petitioner was not genuine. He was therefore asked to file an affidavit which was subsequently filed on 02.05.2018. In the affidavit, it is stated that the above duplicate copy of the admit card was verified with the MRS and tabulation register of HSLC Examination, 1983. Verification revealed that the father’s name was Md. Kajim Uddin and not Abdul Rajjak as reflected in the photo copy of the duplicate admit card filed by the petitioner. As per the record, Md. Abdur Rashid was the son of Md. Kajim Uddin and he was a student of Barthal Doloigaon HS School, PO-Doloigaon in the district of Nagaon. Annexure-A to the said affidavit states that duplicate copy of the admit card was issued to Abdur Rashid without incorporation of father’s name. Obviously the words “S/o Abdul Rejak” were written in the blank space for personal gain. The duplicate copy of the admit card has been annexed to the said affidavit as obtained from the counter foil. Here the words “S/o Abdul Rejak” are not there. The exhibited copy has also been annexed to the affidavit. A comparison of the duplicate admit card as obtained from the counter foil and the copy of the duplicate admit card as exhibited by the petitioner would reveal that there is clear difference in the handwriting while writing the words “S/o Abdul Rejak” when compared to the words Abdur Rashid. This is clearly visible even to the untrained naked eye. Therefore, it is quite evident that Ext. 5 has been manipulated. On this ground itself the writ petition is liable to be dismissed but we have refrained from doing so since after all it is a question of citizenship though such desperate and unethical conduct of the petitioner cannot be condoned by the Court. 27. Interestingly, neither in the written statement nor in the evidence did the petitioner mention the school in which he had studied. Affidavit of SEBA disclosed that Md. 27. Interestingly, neither in the written statement nor in the evidence did the petitioner mention the school in which he had studied. Affidavit of SEBA disclosed that Md. Abdul Rashid, son of Md. Kajim Uddin was a student of Barthal Doloigaon H.S. School, Nagaon. If the petitioner had indeed studied in the Barthal Doloigaon HS School from where he had appeared and passed the HSLC examination, he would have certainly mentioned the same in his written statement or disclosed in his evidence. The fact that he did not say so clearly indicates that he tried to project himself as Abdur Rashid S/o Abdul Rejak. Therefore, it is quite apparent that petitioner tried to take advantage on account of similarity in name and tried to project himself as Md. Abdul Rashid bearing Roll K-77 No. 74 who had passed the HSLC examination in 1983. Even in the writ petition there is no averment by the petitioner regarding the school where he had studied and wherefrom he had appeared in the HSLC examination. 28. In Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit, reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 604 , Supreme Court has explained as to how date of birth and other entries in a school certificate or school register has to be proved. The school admission register was required to be produced before the Tribunal and from such record the particulars in the school certificate were required to be proved. Particulars recorded in school certificate or school register would have no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the information relating to the date of birth etc. is examined. In the instant case, neither the school admission register of Barthal Doloigaon HS School was produced nor any authority from the said school deposed before the Tribunal. 29. From the above, it is evident that Exts. 4 & 5 relate to a different Abdur Rashid who was son of Md. Kajim Uddin and not to the petitioner. 30. Certain other documents were filed by the petitioner in the name of Md. Abdur Rashid, son of Late A. Rajjek. These documents are of recent origin i.e. of 01.02.1998, 25.03.2004 and 22.07.2014 and therefore can be of no assistance to the petitioner. This is because 25.03.1971 is the cut-off date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6(a) of the CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1955 as amended. Abdur Rashid, son of Late A. Rajjek. These documents are of recent origin i.e. of 01.02.1998, 25.03.2004 and 22.07.2014 and therefore can be of no assistance to the petitioner. This is because 25.03.1971 is the cut-off date for identification of foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6(a) of the CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1955 as amended. In this context, as proceedee has to establish linkage with an Indian parent or grandparent relatable to a period prior to 25.03.1971 by adducing cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. Besides, those documents were not proved in accordance with law. Mere filing of documents or marking of documents as exhibits is not enough. Not only the documents would have to be proved, even the contents thereof would also have to be proved. 31. According to the evidence of the petitioner, father had expired in 1989 and mother had expired in 1991. If petitioner was born in 1966 he would have become eligible to cast his vote in 1987 when he was 21 years of age. But we do not find a single voters list or any other document where the names of the above three persons i.e. father, mother and son appeared together. There is also no voters list where the names of the son and mother appeared together. 32. Thus from the above what is discernible is that the narrative presented by the petitioner suffers from multiple material contradictions and omissions rendering the same highly improbable. Petitioner had also resorted to manipulation of documents. Therefore not only the petitioner failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the FOREIGNERS ACT , 1946 by adducing cogent, reliable and admissible evidence, he had also not approached the Tribunal and consequently this Court with clean hands as it is quite evident that there was manipulation of document (Ext. 5).” 6) The said order dated 27.09.2018, passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 7413/2016, was assailed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India, which was registered and numbered as Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2706/2019 [arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 in WPC No. 7413/2016 passed by the Gauhati High Court]. On the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the Supreme Court of India had dismissed the said petition as withdrawn, however, granting liberty to approach again in respect of the impugned order as well as the order passed in the review petition. 7) Armed with the said order, the petitioner, without showing any urgency, filed this review petition on 04.03.2025 with a lot of defects, which were leisurely cured on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, the file was sent back to the section with office endorsement dated 07.04.2025 and the reporting seal of the Court was affixed on 09.04.2025. The matter was then listed on 28.07.2025. Once again, the defect in arraying of incorrect party as respondent no. 3 was noticed and this Court, by order dated 28.07.2025, directed the petitioner to file an amended cause-title, which was done as per office note dated 02.09.2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 04.09.2025. 8) The ex facie impression of the Court is that the petitioner, only after becoming aware that the Hon’ble Judge, presiding the Division Bench, when the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 27.09.2018, was no longer in this Court, had filed this review petition. Such practice has been deprecated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., (1997) 9 SCC 736 and Vedanta Limited v. Goa Foundation & Ors., (2021) 7 SCC 206 , by the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters. 9) The reason for having the aforesaid impression is that after this Court, after causing verification to be made, had found out about the fraudulent manipulation of the name of Abdul Rejak as father of the petitioner in the admit card, though on record, the name of his father was Kamal Uddin, it would be the best option for the petitioner to avoid the matter to be listed on the same Bench. 10) It is surprising to note that in paragraph nos. 3(b), 3(c) and 3(m) of this review petition, the petitioner has now taken a U-turn by now claiming that his father Abdul Rejak @ Abdul Razak is also known as Kajimuddin. Moreover, it is surprising to note that the petitioner has annexed several documents to this review petition, marking them as Annexure-A to Annexure-V1 respectively, with supporting statement in paragraph nos. Moreover, it is surprising to note that the petitioner has annexed several documents to this review petition, marking them as Annexure-A to Annexure-V1 respectively, with supporting statement in paragraph nos. 3(B) to 3(Y) of this review petition, but in the affidavit in support of this review petition, the statements made in paragraph nos. 3(B) to 3(Y) are verified by the petitioner to be true to his knowledge. Thus, the petitioner has not verified any of the annexed documents to be true to the record. Be it stated that in the grounds, the petitioner has again disputed himself to be the son of Kamaluddin @ Kamal Uddin, which is an issue which has been referred to in the impugned order dated 27.09.2018, part of which is extracted hereinbefore]. 11) Therefore, if the finding of this Court is incorrect, then it is trite that in respect of an erroneous decision, review cannot be taken-up and considered as if entertaining an appeal in disguise. If one requires any authority on the point, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hage Gumto & Ors. Vs. Ninya Bagra & Ors., (2010) 1 GLR 174, may be referred to wherein, it has been held that the power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power and that review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be permitted to act as an appeal in disguise. 12) This Court, after directing a verification to be made, found out the fraud committed in the case by insertion of the name of the projected father of the petitioner. Moreover, even in this review petition, the affidavit filed in support of this review petition shows that the petitioner has not taken the responsibility of the documents to be true to the records, and for which reason, he is disentitled for reconsideration of his claim in exercise of review jurisdiction. 13) There is yet another facet of the present case. During the pendency of the proceedings of Case No. F.T.(D) 226/2015, the petitioner had not made any prayer before the learned Foreigners Tribunal for allowing him to file additional written statement and additional documents. Such a prayer was made by filing Misc. Case No. 33/2016, after opinion dated 30.09.2016, was passed by the learned Tribunal. Though the order dated 11.11.2016, dismissing the said Misc. Such a prayer was made by filing Misc. Case No. 33/2016, after opinion dated 30.09.2016, was passed by the learned Tribunal. Though the order dated 11.11.2016, dismissing the said Misc. Case was assailed in the writ petition, it appears that after the fraudulent practice adopted by the petitioner was unearthed by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press for a relief in respect of the said order dated 11.11.2016, dismissing the said Misc. Case No. 33/2016. Therefore, no order to that effect was made by this Court while passing the order dated 27.09.2018, in W.P.(C) 7413/2016 and thus, the relief claimed in respect of order dated 11.11.2016, is deemed to have been dismissed. 14) We have also asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has been provided with a copy of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court of India and his the response was that he was not provided with a copy of the same. Be that as it may, it is trite that in a proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal, a proceedee is required to disclose all material particulars and lead evidence thereon. Therefore, unless the petitioner is permitted to introduce additional written statement before the Foreigners Tribunal, in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, this Court cannot examine fresh documents filed by the petitioner. 15) In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision in the case of Idorjan Bibi @ Iyedijan Bibi v. The Union of India , WP(C) 308/2017, decided on 03.12.2024, reported in (2024) 0 Supreme (Gau) 1539 , wherein this Court has reiterated the principles on which a writ court can exercise the power to issue writ of certiorari. The relevant paragraph thereof is quoted below:- “17. In Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das and ors, reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 996, wherein the Apex Court has expounded the principles on which a writ Court can exercise the writ of certiorari. The Apex Court in this Judgment after examining the precedents in this regard held that there are two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. The Apex Court in this Judgment after examining the precedents in this regard held that there are two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. The first cardinal principle is that when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It is not be issued on mere asking. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. The Apex Court held that so far as the errors of law are concerned, a writ of certiorari could be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A mere error of law is not sufficient to attract the writ of certiorari. It must be one which is manifest or patent on the face of the record. Mere formal or technical errors, even of law, are not sufficient, so as to attract a writ of certiorari. Coming to the facts on the present case, in view of the discussions above, we do not find any error of law or lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal while issuing the impugned order.” 16) In this case, after committing fraud, that was detected in the writ petition, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the Court, while deciding the reference, the learned Foreigners Tribunal had failed to appreciate the pleadings or evidence tendered by the petitioner, or taken into consideration extraneous materials, or had committed any perversity whatsoever. Similarly, despite a lengthy hearing, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the impugned order of this Court is vitiated by any error apparent on the face of record. To sustain the prayer to allow the petitioner to file additional written statement and to lead fresh evidence after remanding the matter, the petitioner has not pleaded or made any effort to demonstrate that despite exercise of due diligence, the documents, on which he intends to rely upon, was not within his knowledge or reach. 17) Under such circumstances, if the review is allowed, it would amount to give premium to a declared foreign national, who has suppressed complete disclosure of facts in his written statement, taken a false plea before the High Court, which was found to be vitiated by fraud, to a fresh consideration of his writ petition and thereby set at naught the finding of fraud by this Court. 18) As mentioned hereinbefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 27.09.2018 and this review petition was filed on 04.03.2025. Therefore, there is a delay of 6 years, 5 months, 5 days (i.e. 2,350 days) in filing this present review petition. The Supreme Court of India had granted the petitioner leave to file review was granted vide order dated 10.02.2020. Therefore, despite obtaining leave, the present review petition was filed after an extraordinary delay of 5 years, 0 months, 22 days (i.e. 1,849 days). The only explanation by the petitioner is that his advocate assured him to file the review petition, and when he came across digital media news on 04.01.2025, he contacted his advocate and he was informed that review petition had not been filed. 19) The petitioner has projected that due to mistake of his advocate, the Court could not appreciate some of the documents. Thus, now the petitioner has put the entire blame on his learned counsel, but in the same time, he has failed to show cause that why, despite being a Science Undergraduate with B.Sc. degree, he did not care to examine the writ petition before filing it and why did he swear the affidavit in support of the writ petition. The petitioner has not filed any complaint against his learned counsel before the competent authority/forum alleging malpractice and/or misconduct. 20) Moreover, it is astonishing to note that in ground no. degree, he did not care to examine the writ petition before filing it and why did he swear the affidavit in support of the writ petition. The petitioner has not filed any complaint against his learned counsel before the competent authority/forum alleging malpractice and/or misconduct. 20) Moreover, it is astonishing to note that in ground no. VII of this review petition, the petitioner has alleged that the SLP before the Supreme Court was withdrawn without his knowledge. If that be so, then the petitioner should have approached the Supreme Court of India to agitate the alleged wrongful and/or illegal withdrawal of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal by his engaged advocates. The petitioner has not produced the certified copy of the order dated 10.02.2020, passed by the Supreme Court of India, perhaps to avoid disclosing before this Court when the copy of the said order of the Supreme Court of India was applied and made available to the petitioner or to his learned counsel. 21) The petitioner admittedly watches digital media news, but has not stated why he cannot keep a track of his SLP filed before the Supreme Court of India, when all case information are in public domain and can be accessed free of charge. 22) Thus, the petitioner, who is aware that he has been declared to be a foreigner, has tried his best to avoid expulsion from the Country by resorting to dilatory tactics of approaching the Court time and again. 23) Thus, on merit as well as on the ground of delay and laches, as calculated hereinbefore, on part of the petitioner to file this review petition, this review petition is liable to be dismissed, which the Court accordingly, does. The consequences of the opinion dated 30.09.2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 5, Morigaon, in Case No. M.F.T.(J) 2016/111 [Case No. F.T. (D) 226/15 (New Number); Case No. F.T.(D) 1066/12 (Old Number); DN Case No. 2503/dt.29/6/1998] shall follow. 24) The Registry shall send a copy of this order to the learned Foreigners Tribunal, to make it a part of the case record referred in the foregoing paragraph for information and future reference. 25) The record of W.P.(C) 7413/2016 (disposed of) shall be detached and consigned to the record room.