Back
Bombay High Court
SWATANTER KUMAR, S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
SATISH NAMBIAR -Appeallant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA -RESPONDENTS
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) 450 Of 2007
Decided On: 06/21/2007
CITIZENSHIP - CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION - CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955, SECTION 7A, 7D - The court examined the cancellation of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration card and life long Visa sticker granted to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 7a (1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was cancelled under the provisions of Section 7d (e) of the Citizenship Act. The court discussed the legality and propriety of the cancellation order, the constitutional mandate of equality before law, and the rights of a foreigner under Article 21. The court also examined the power of the Government to cancel the registration and the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions. The court found that the cancellation decision was not vitiated by want of compliance with principles of natural justice or any other grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Overseas Citizen of India, challenged the cancellation of his OCI registration card and life long Visa sticker granted under the Citizenship Act, 1955. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order violated the constitutional mandate of equality before law and was prejudicial to his interest as a law-abiding citizen in India and the United States of America.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation decision was not vitiated by want of compliance with principles of natural justice or any other grounds. The court held that the cancellation was an administrative decision expected to be taken with reference to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The court also found that the cancellation decision was not arbitrary and did not cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues examined by the court included the legality and propriety of the cancellation order, the constitutional mandate of equality before law, the rights of a foreigner under Article 21, and the power of the Government to cancel the registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the examination of the cancellation decision in the context of the constitutional mandate of equality before law, the rights of a foreigner under Article 21, and the power of the Government to cancel the registration. The court found that the cancellation decision was not vitiated by want of compliance with principles of natural justice or any other grounds.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the Rule, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) RULE. The respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard counsel appearing for parties.
( 2 ) THE Central Government issued Overseas Citizen of India registration card bearing No. A 0202250 and life long Visa sticker No. U-020250 dated 18th May, 2006 to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 7a (1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was cancelled in public interest under the provisions of Section 7d (e) of the Citizenship Act vide order dated 14th February, 2007. The petitioner, Shri Satish nambiar, in this petition challenges the legality and propriety of this order, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
(i) The petitioner was entitled to a hearing prior to passing of the order dated 14th February, 2007, which apparently is prejudicial to his interest; and withdraws the benefits granted to him in accordance with law;
(ii) The impugned order is not preceded by any enquiry and suffers from the element of non-application of mind and arbitrariness;
(iii) The impugned order clearly violates the constitutional mandate of equality before law, and is liable to be set aside.
( 3 ) THE above grounds have to be examined by the Court in the light of the factual matrix, which emerges from the record of the case filed, and are that the petitioner was born in Mumbai on 14th January, 1950. He was employed as a driver with an american diplomat from 1973 to 1976, and in the year 1982, he was transferred to American Consulate General at mumba. The petitioner was appointed as a Works Control clerk at the same Consulate. The petitioner was appointed as a Security Investigator at American Consulate, Mumbai in 1985. In the year 1999, he received special immigrant visa to migrate to America. In order to take the benefit, the petitioner resigned from the Consulate, and left for America with his wife where he lived till the year 2005, and worked with private establishments.
( 4 ) IN October, 2005, the wife of the petitioner came back to India to look after her ailing mother. The petitioner completed all formalities for obtaining permanent visa for his mother-in-law. As she refused to go to America, the petitioner came back to india in November, 2005. The petitioner applied for Overseas citizen of India (OCI) Registration Card in April, 2006. The petitioner was granted the said registration card on 18th May, 2006 under the provisions of Section 7a (1) the Citizenship act. After having obtained such card, the petitioner applied for a job with the American Consulate in Mumbai as a vacancy had arisen and he was appointed as Site Security investigator on 26th June, 2006 with the Overseas Building operation, American Consulate at Mumba. Since then he continued to work on the said post till 20th February, 2007; and after receiving the order dated 14th February, 2007, he left the job.
( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that there was no material before the respondents to take such a severe action and to cancel the registration card and permanent visa issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. According to the petitioner, he has no criminal record. No case has ever been registered against him. He has not violated any law for the time being in force; and behaved like a law-abiding citizen in india and in the United States of America.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of hasan Ali Raihali Vs. Union of India, reported in A.. R. 2006 s. C. 1714, and another decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sarbanand Sonowal (II) Vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 174.
( 7 ) IN the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-Union of India, it is stated that the petitioner is a foreigner governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946; and grant of OCI registration does not amount to granting Indian Citizenship. In terms of article 9 of the Consti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
