Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.N. Wanchoo, Jagat Narayan
Ghaurul Hasan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Case No. 26 of 1957
Decided On : 04/08/1958
CITIZENSHIP - REGISTRATION - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE - DEPORTATION ORDER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, who were born in India before partition, migrated to Pakistan after 1947 and obtained Pakistani passports. They returned to India in 1956 and applied for registration as citizens of India under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Collector granted them certificates of citizenship, but later cancelled them and ordered them to leave India within three days, failing which they would be deported.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to grant the certificates of citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) because the applicants were citizens of Pakistan by virtue of Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, which provides that the acquisition of a passport of another country is conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of citizenship of that country. The Court also held that the Collector had no authority to cancel the certificates once granted, but that the cancellation could be upheld because it restored the position as it was before the certificates were granted.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to grant citizenship by registration to the applicants under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 2. Whether the Collector had authority to cancel the certificates of citizenship once granted. 3. Whether the order of the Collector asking the applicants to leave India and telling them that if they did not do so within three days, they would be deported according to law is a valid order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Clauses (a) and (e) of Section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 are mutually exclusive. Clause (a) applies to persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily residents in India, while Clause (e) applies to citizens of the countries mentioned in the First Schedule, including Pakistan. 2. Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 is a valid rule framed under Section 18 read with Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and it does not go beyond the scope of Section 9(1). 3. The Collector had no power to grant certificates of citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)(a) to the applicants because they were citizens of Pakistan by virtue of Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. 4. The Collector had no authority to cancel the certificates of citizenship once granted under Section 5(1)(a), but the cancellation could be upheld because it restored the position as it was before the certificates were granted. 5. The order of the Collector asking the applicants to leave India and telling them that if they did not do so within three days, they would be deported according to law is not an order of deportation, but merely an information to the applicants that the law will take its course.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application, holding that there was no force in it. The Court also ordered parties to bear their own costs.
K.N. Wanchoo, J.-This is an application by Ghaurul Hasan sb Rahim Bux, Abdul Ban sb Abdul Ganni, Mohammad Ayub s/o Abdul Ganni, Tahira Begum wife of Ghaurul Hasan, Vlst. Zebunnisa wife of Abdul Ban and Z.unurnd Begum wife of Mahammad Ayub under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the District Magistrate of Nagaur, dated the 8th of February 1957 by which the registration certificates issued to the applicants under the Citizenship Act (No. 57 of 1955) hereinafter called the Act, were cancelled and they were ordered to return to Pakistan within three days, failing which they would be deported according to law.
2. The case of the applicants was briefly this. The applicants were all horn in India, as it was before the partition of 1947. They migrated from the territory of India, as it is, after the partition of 1947 to the iterritory of Pakistan sometime in the year 1947. Thereafter they came to India on two occasions on temporary visits after obtaining passports and tried to obtain certificate for permanent settlement in India. Apparently they did not get the certificate for permanent settlement in India, though they have not said so in so many words. Ultimately they came to India in 1956 on the basis of passports issued to them by Pakistan. In December 1956 they applied under Section 5 of the Act for registration as citizens of India to the Collector of Nagaur within whose jurisdiction they were then residing. The Collector, after making enquiries, issued to them certificates of registration as citizens of India under Section 5 (1) (a) and their passports were cancelled and deposited in the Collector’s Office. This happened in December 1956. But in Feb.uary 1957, the Collector cancelled the certificates of registration issued by him in December 1950 and told them that they must leave India or they would be deported according to law. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants filed the present application and their contention is that the Collector had no authority to cancel the certificate granted by him under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Act and that as they became citizens of India by virtue of these certificates the Collector had no authority to threaten to deport them if they did not leave India within the time allowed to them.
3. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State and it is urged that the Collector had no jurisdiction to grant the certificates of citizenship under Section 5 (i) (a). Reliance in this connection was placed on explanation (3) to Section 5 (1). It is also urged that as the applicants had migrated from India to Pakistan after March 1957, they lost their Indian citizenship and became citizens of Pakistan under Article 7 of the Constitution Therelore, they cannot be said to be ordinarily residents in India and even Section 5 (1) (a) did not apply to them. As or the order asking them to leave India, it was said that as the applicants were not citizens of India, they were asked to leave the country as their visas had expired and the Central Government had refused to grant them any long term visas as far back as August 1956.
4. The two main questions, then fore, that arise in this case are (1) whether the Collector had jurisdiction to grant citizenship by registration to the applicants under Section 5 (1) (a) and (2) whether having once granted
the certificate under Section 5(1)(a) the Collector couid cancel it. A further question as to whether the order of the Collector asking the applicants to leave India and telling them that if they did not do so within three days, they would be deported according to law is a valid order Section 5(1) provides five categories of persons to whom citizenship by registration can be granted. They are as follows
.(a) personsof Indian origin who are ordinarily residents in India and have been so resident for six months immediately before making an application for registration.
.(b) persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in any coun
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
