T.S. Thakur, J.

1. The short question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether an order passed by a writ court can be said to have been effaced by a subsequent order passed by the competent authority in exercise of its powers of review under Section 15A of the Citizenship Act. The petitioner contends that the order made by the High Court of Bombay in the writ petition filed by the petitioner before that court had no doubt upheld the order passed by the competent authority under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955 cancelling his registration as an overseas citizen of India, but the said judgment would stand effaced by the subsequent order passed by the said authority in review under Section 15A. The respondents on the other hand argue that the judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay upholding the order of cancellation of the petitioners registration remains binding upon the parties to the said judgment till such time the same is set aside or modified by the Apex Court. The order passed by the competent authority in review under Section 15A cannot, according to them, affect the efficacy of the adjudication by a competent court nor does the order in review give to the petitioner a fresh cause of action to challenge the original order the validity whereof is already upheld. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:

2. The petitioner was born in Mumbai on 14th January, 1950. He started his career as a driver with an American diplomat and gradually rose to hold the post of a Works Control Clerk in the American Consulate General at Mumbai. In the year 1985, he was appointed as a Security Investigator at the American Council, Mumbai in which capacity, he continued to work till the year 1999 when he received a Special Immigrant Visa to migrate to America where he lived till the year 2005 allegedly working with private establishments. He returned to India in November, 2005 and applied for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Registration Card in April 2006 which was granted to him on 18th May, 2006 under Section 7A(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Having obtained the said Card, the petitioner once again applied for a job with the American Consulate in Mumbai and was appointed as Site Security Investigator on 26.6.06 with the Overseas Building Operation, American Consulate of Bombay. He continued to work on the said post till 20th February, 2007 when he left the job after receiving an order dated 14th February, 2007 withdrawing the Registration granted to him in public interest.

3. Aggrieved by the withdrawal of the registration to him, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 450/2007 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The petitioners case was that there was no material before the respondents to justify action by way of cancellation of the OCI Registration Card and the visa issued in his favor by the competent authority. The petitioner alleged that he had no criminal record and that no case had ever been registered against him nor had he violated any law for the time being in force either in India or in USA. The cancellation order was assailed on the ground of being arbitrary and unsupported by any material whatsoever.

.4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it was inter alias stated that the petitioner was a foreigner governed by the Foreigners Act and that the grant of OCI Registration did not amount to grant of Indian citizenship to him. It was further stated that the power of the Government of India to grant or terminate registration of overseas citizen was absolute and sovereign in character. Such a decision could not, argued the respondents, be made the subject matter of a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further alleged that the security agency of the Government of India had given a report adverse to .the petitioner.

.5. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay that heard the above petition held that the decision of the compete