ABDUR RASHID Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 25/3/1971 from Bangladesh vide opinion dtd. 30/9/2016, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 5th, Morigaon, in Case No. F.T.(D) 226/2015, has prayed for review of the order dtd. 27/9/2018, 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 Examinatioin 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. 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 dtd. 30/9/2016, that the petitioner was a foreigner.