Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. S. BACHAWAT, A. K. MUKHERJI
ABDUL HALIM MIA - Appellant
Versus
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KATWA - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : April 24, 1964
CITIZENSHIP - REGISTRATION - SUMMARY REJECTION OF APPLICATION - JURISDICTION OF COURT - CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955, SECTIONS 5(1)(A), 14(1), 14(2), 15, 18 - CITIZENSHIP RULES, 1956, RULE 9 - FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946, SECTIONS 2(A), 3(2), 9.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, born in Burdwan, India, opted for Pakistan in 1947 and remained there for six years before returning to India under a Pakistani passport. He applied for Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, but his application was summarily rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katwa. The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the officer acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction by not conducting an inquiry before dismissing the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer acted within his jurisdiction in summarily rejecting the application. The court found that Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act empowers the Collector to grant or refuse an application for registration as a citizen of India in his discretion and is not required to assign any reasons for such grant or refusal. The court also found that Section 14(2) of the Act makes the Collector's decision final and not subject to challenge in any court, subject to a revision application to the Central Government under Section 15.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction in summarily rejecting the appellant's application for registration as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 2. Whether the appellant is a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer acted within his jurisdiction in summarily rejecting the application. The court found that Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act empowers the Collector to grant or refuse an application for registration as a citizen of India in his discretion and is not required to assign any reasons for such grant or refusal. The court also found that Section 14(2) of the Act makes the Collector's decision final and not subject to challenge in any court, subject to a revision application to the Central Government under Section 15. 2. The court found that the appellant was a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, as he was born in Burdwan, India, opted for Pakistan in 1947, and remained there for six years before returning to India under a Pakistani passport.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer acted within his jurisdiction in summarily rejecting the application and that the appellant was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act.
( 1 ) THE Sub-Divisional Officer, Katwa, summarily rejected the appellant's application for registration of his name as an Indian citizen under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act 1955. Mr. Ali contends that the officer acted legally and in excess of his jurisdiction in dismissing the application summarily without making an enquiry. In support of this contention Mr. Ali relies upon the decision in the case of Sk. Hakimuddin v. Dy. Secy. Govt. of West Bengal, 66 Cal WN 126 : (AIR 1961 Cal 299 ).
( 2 ) NOW Section 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act 1955 read with Rule 7 of the Citizenship Rules 1956 empowers the Collector to register as a citizen of India, on application made in this behalf, any person who is ordinarily resident in India and who has been so resident for six months immediately before making the application. Section 14 (1) provides that the Collector may in his discretion grant or refuse the application and shall not be required to assign any reasons for such grant or refusal. Section 14 (2) provides that subject to the provisions of Section 15, the decision of the Collector shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. Under Section 15 any person aggrieved by his order may apply to the Central Government for a revision of the order, and on such application the Central Government may pass such order as it deems fit after considering the application and any report thereon which the Collector may submit, and its decision in this behalf is final. Section 18 empowers the Central Government to make rules. Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules 1956 opens with the note "collector to make inquiries before registration. " The rule provides that the Collector shall before registering a person under Section 5 (1) (a) satisfy himself that the person is of Indian Origin and has been actually resident in India for six months immediately proceeding the date of the application, has close connections in India, has an intention to make India his permanent home, as signed the prescribed oath of allegiance, is of good character and is otherwise a fit person to be registered as a citizen of India. Now in 66 Cal WN 126 : (AIR 1961 Cal 299) Sinha, J. held that the summary dismissal of the application under Section 5 (1) (a) without making any enquiry was in contravention of Rule 9 and he issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order and directed the Collector to proceed to satisfy himself upon proper enquiry. He said,"so far as the application itself is concerned, the intention is apparent that the petitioner wishes to be an Indian citizen, but as to whether he intends to make India his permanent home, cannot be decided without an enquiry. In his application the applicant has said on oath that he intends to do so. The Collector must therefore, either accept it or reject it and this he cannot do summarily but must make some enquiry. "with respect we AIR unable to agree with this decision. Rule 9 requires the Collector to satisfy himself on the several points mentioned in the rule "before registering a person under Section 5 (1) (a ). " Before registering the applicant as a citizen, the Collector must satisfy himself on those points and for that purpose he may make inquiries. He may inform himself in such manner as he thinks fit. He may make confidential enquiries. He may act on his own personal knowledge. If on a perusal of the application he decides to reject it, he need not make further enquiries. He is required to follow the procedure prescribed by the Act and the rules and to do no more. Neither the Act nor the rules require him to make an enquiry in case he rejects the application under Section 5 (1) (a ). Even if he is satisfied that all the conditions mentioned in Rule 9 have been fulfilled, he ahs ample power to refuse the certificate of citizenship under Section 5. He is no way bound to register the applicant as a citizen even though all the conditions mentioned in Rule 9 are fulfill
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
