Unexplained delay and laches preclude review of an ex parte Foreigners’ Tribunal opinion under Article 226.

The petitioner was declared a foreigner who entered India post-25.03.1971 by an ex parte opinion dated 13.03.2021 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT), Jorhat

The petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal on 20 separate dates

A writ petition [WP(C) 6775/2025] challenging the FT order was dismissed on 09.02.2026 primarily due to an unexplained delay of 4 years, 7 months, and 7 days

The petitioner filed the present review petition alleging that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the failure of intermediaries/counsel to communicate case status

1. Whether a review of the judgment dated 09.02.2026 is maintainable on grounds of discovery of new facts regarding the negligence of the petitioner's previous counsel and intermediaries.

2. Whether the Court’s refusal to interfere with the ex parte opinion of the Foreigners’ Tribunal constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court applied Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, governing review jurisdiction, which limits review to the discovery of new evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reasons

It cited Malishwari v. K. Dutt Saguna & Anr. (2025) to emphasize that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to substitute a view

Regarding the writ of certiorari under Article 226, the Court followed T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa (1954), holding that the High Court does not act as an appellate tribunal and only interferes in cases of lack of jurisdiction or palpable error

The Court noted the statutory mandate under Order 3, Clauses (13) & (14) of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, requiring references to be decided within 60 days

The Court reasoned that review jurisdiction is highly restrictive and does not permit a rehearing of the case

It found that the petitioner’s excuse—blaming intermediaries and counsel for the three-and-a-half-year delay following the end of the COVID-19 pandemic—could not be classified as a "new fact" or an "error apparent" under Order XLVII Rule 1, but rather reflected gross negligence by the petitioner

The Court observed that the Tribunal had granted 20 opportunities for appearance, satisfying the requirements of natural justice

Since the petitioner failed to show that the original dismissal was without jurisdiction or legally perverse at the "first blush," the Court held that the petitioner was seeking to re-argue the merits, which is impermissible in review proceedings

The Court affirmed its earlier holding that the enormous, unexplained delay of 1,682 days remained unsatisfied by the petitioner’s new explanations. Consequently, the judgment dated 09.02.2026 in WP(C) 6775/2025 was maintained without alteration