Arunasalam Periasamy V. Commmissioner For Registration Of Indian And Pakistani Residents

1952 Present: Swan J.

ARUNASALAM PERIASAMY, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER
FOR REGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI
RESIDENTS, Respondent

S. C. 39-Application No. L 649

Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949-Sections 9 and 14 (5)-Application for citizenship-Refusal-Notice thereof to applicant- Cause shown thereafter through proctor-Common law right of representation by proctor or advocate-Applicant's right to be heard.

Where a letter requesting for an opportunity to show cause against the refusal of an application for registration as citizen under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act was written to the Commissioner by a proctor on behalf of the applicant, and not by the applicant himself--

Held, (i) that section 9(1) of the Act did not debar the applicant from showing cause through a proctor. A party has a common law right to be represented by a proctor or advocate, unless the legislature expressly forbids it.

(ii) that the Commissioner should fix the matter for inquiry and make his final order after hearing the applicant.

APPEAL from an order of the Commissioner for the Registration of Indian and Pakistani residents in Ceylon.

E. R. S. R. Coomaraswamy, for the applicant-appellant.

Douglas Jansze, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 3, 1952. SWAN J.-

The applicant-appellant had applied to the respondent, who is the Commissioner for the Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents in Ceylon, to be registered as a Citizen of Ceylon. The application, which was dated 13th October, 1950, was made under Section 7 of the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949. On 12th May, 1950, the Commissioner informed the appellant that he had decided to refuse the application on the grounds that the appellant had not proved-

(a) that his wife and dependent minor children had been ordinarily resident in Ceylon, and

(b) that he had permanently settled in Ceylon within the meaning of the Act.

By the notice conveying this information to the appellant the Commissioner also intimated to him that he should show cause, if any, as required by Section 9 (1) of the Act, within three months of the said notice.

By a letter dated 10th July, 1951, written on his behalf by Proctor K. Vijayaratnam the appellant stated as follows :-

"I appeal to you against your decision to refuse my client's application dated 13th October, 1950, on the following grounds:-

(1) My client is in a position to adduce ample evidence to satisfy you-

(a) That his wife has been ordinarily resident in Ceylon from the date of her marriage to my client.

(b) That his children have been ordinarily resident in Ceylon from the date of their birth.

(c) That all his children were born in Ceylon.

(d) That all his children have been and are being educated in Ceylon.

(e) That even his first marriage in 1939 was contracted in Ceylon.

(2) My client submits that the second ground stated in the schedule to Form 3 cannot be sustained because-

(a) My client at the date of his application and since then has been permanently settled in Ceylon.

(b) My client has no intention whatsoever of leaving Ceylon at any time.

(c) My client made only two remittances to India of Rs. 60 each in 1949 and that, too, to his aged mother under a moral duty. His statement on these occasions is not inconsistent with an intention on his part to be a Citizen of Ceylon, especially because nearly two years have elapsed since his declaration.

(d) My client has satisfied every one of the conditions set out in Act No. 3 of 1949 and, therefore, he cannot be requested to satisfy any condition not set out in the Act.

In view of the above, I hope you will grant Citizenship rights to my client. But if you require further proof, please let me know on what date and at what time Mr. E. R. S. R. Coomaraswamy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document