Decision to permit or not to permit a foreigner to continue to stay in India is a matter of political exigency and discretion of Central Government.

(PRAYER: W.P.No.13122 of 1994 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Declaration declaring that the Amendment Act 30 of 1994, H.R. & C.E. is ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

W.P.No.13046 of 1998 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing respondents-1 to 6 to detain and deport Mr.Seventhinathan the 7th respondent herein to Srilanka and to report the said fact to this Court.)

In W.P.No.13122 of 1994, the petitioner, claiming to be the hereditary trustee of Devanarayanaswamy Devasthanam, seeks for a declaration that the Amendment Act 30 of 1994, amending the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 as ultra vires the Constitution.

2. In W.P.No.13046 of 1998, one Chinnasamy had sought for a Mandamus to direct the respondents/Union Government of India and the State Government to detain and deport the seventh respondent (writ petitioner in W.P.No.13122 of 1994) to Srilanka.

3. For convenience of description, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13122 of 1994 is described as the petitioner.

4. W.P.No.13122 of 1994:

Though the background of the dispute relates to a long history of the establishment of Devanarayanaswamy Devasthanam, the claim of the petitioner to the post of Managing Trustee and the counter claim by other persons and long disputes over the same, this Court need not go into all the said issues in view of the narrow scope of this writ petition, namely, the constitutional validity of Amending Act 30 of 1994 whereby, Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was amended, barring non-citizens to be qualified to be trustee(s) of any religious institution under the Act. It is sufficient to state only the facts relevant to the decision on that issue.

5. The petitioner claims that the temple in question is of an ancient origin and in the beginning of the 20th Century, there were certain disputes among the Trustees leading to the filing of O.S.No.6 of 1993, Sub Court, Tanjore, regarding the Management of the Devasthanam. The dispute ultimately came before this Court in A.S.Nos.121 and 122 of 1999 and by judgment and decree dated 3.4.1923, this Court had framed a scheme decree and under Clause 3, the trusteeship vested in Varani Adheenasthan and the residents of Karanavai Village in the District of Jaffna in Srilanka and the Management Trustee shall be appointed by the Varani Adheenam. The petitioner claims to be the validly appointed Managing Trustee. Subsequently, another scheme had been framed in O.A.No.60 of 1960 and a further modification in O.A.No.71 of 1972 dated 22.12.1980. There appears to have been some inter se disputes between the trustees about which we are not concerned in this writ petition.

6. According to the petitioner, certain persons having vested interests over the properties of the temples and could not succeed in interfering with the administration of the temple, had caused the introduction of the impugned amendment only with the motive to deprive him of the trusteeship to which he is legally entitled.

7. Mr. A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel and Mr. R.Subramanian, representing the petitioners herein, made elaborate submissions and contended that the statement of object and reasons expose the real motive, namely, that the amendment was specifically directed against the petitioner Devasthanam, and hence, mala fide. Learned counsel also referred to Entry 17 of the Union List and Entry 28 of the Concurrent List and contended that the subjects under Entry 17 of the Union List was not within the competence of the State Legislature to pass any Act.

8. Reference was also made to Articles 246 and 254 of the Constitution in support of the same contention. The contention was that a non-citizen was also entitled to claim fundamental rights to seek enforcement of Article 14, though may not be entitled to protection under Article 19. A further submission