THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.1942 OF 2017

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“To issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the Leave India Notice no 18/FS/SB/RCK/2017 dated 1812017 issued by the respondent no 3 directing the petitioner no 1 i e the wife of the petitioner no 2 to leave India on or before 2212017 without looking into the fact that the application for registration as a citizen of India of the petitioner no 1 dated 21102016 with MHA File No 2016020768 is under consideration by the respondent no 6 is nothing but arbitrary illegal null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 19 and 21 of the constitution of India.”

2. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondent No.4.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the Leave India Notice dated 18.01.2017, whereby petitioner No.1 was directed to leave the country on or before 22.01.2017. It is contended that the said notice was issued without taking into consideration the application dated 21.10.2016, filed by petitioner No.1 before the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking registration of citizenship, which remains pending consideration. He further fairly submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings petitioner No.1 has been permitted to continue in India on the strength of a long- term visa, which is being periodically extended from time to time. It is stated that petitioner No.1 continues to pursue appropriate remedies and is making representations before the competent authority with respect to her claim for citizenship.

4. Per contra, Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government submits that the challenge to the Leave India Notice has, by efflux of time, become infructuous inasmuch as petitioner No.1 has admittedly been allowed to remain in India on successive long-term visas. It is further submitted that the pendency of a citizenship application cannot be a ground for seeking relief, since the District Collector has already considered and rejected the application of petitioner No.1 on the ground that she had failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of ordinary residence for a minimum period of seven years, including a continuous period of 12 months immediately preceding the application. Moreover, it is contended that the Ministry of Home Affairs has not received any application through the prescribed online module. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. It is evident from the pleadings that the challenge raised to the Leave India Notice dated 18.01.2017, directing petitioner No.1 to leave the country on or before 22.01.2017, has become academic and is no longer a live issue. By efflux of time, the cause of action arising from the said notice has lapsed, rendering the relief sought against it infructuous.

7. Insofar as the application for registration of citizenship is concerned, it has been clarified on behalf of the respondents that the said application was duly considered and rejected by the District Collector on the ground that petitioner No.1 did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of ordinary residence for seven years, including a continuous period of twelve months immediately preceding the application, as envisaged under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 read with Rule 6 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. It has further been submitted that no application was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs through the prescribed online module, which is the mandatory channel for such applications.

8. Having regard to the above factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the principal relief sought against the Leave India Notice no