Marimuttu V. Commissioner For Registration Of Indian And Pakistani Residents

1956 Present : Gratiaen, J., and Gunasekara, J.

S. K. MARIMUTTU, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATION
OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS, Respondent

S. C. 101-Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Application No. Z 3,079

Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1949-Sections 9 and 20- Application for citizenship-Refusal under Section 9-Notice by registered post-Effect of non-delivery-" Shall be deemed".

A registered letter was posted to an applicant for citizenship informing him, under section 9 (1) of the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, that unless he showed cause within three months his application would be refused. As the applicant was temporarily absent from his place of residence the letter never reached him and was returned to the Commissioner as " unclaimed ".

Held, that the words '" shall be deemed to have been duly served " in section 20 rendered the mere act of posting the registered letter equivalent to personal service ; accordingly, the proved non-receipt of the letter could not assist the applicant in re-opening the matter of the refusal of his application for citizenship.

APPEAL under section 15 of the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1949.

N. K. Choksy, Q.C., with Lyn Weerasekara and Maureen Seneviratne, for the appellant.

Walter Jayawardene, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

308

February 2, 1956. GRATIAEN, J.-

The appellant had made an application on 25th July 1951 for the registration of himself, his wife and his children as citizens of Ceylon under the provisions of the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship)
Act No. 3 of 1949. The application was in the first instance referred to an investigating officer who furnished his report to the Deputy Commissioner under section 8 (2) (b). The Deputy Commissioner formed the opinion that a prima facie case for registration had not been established and took steps to call upon the appellant to show cause why his application should not be refused. Accordingly, a notice in the form prescribed by section 9 (1) was posted on 8th February 1955 in a registered letter addressed to the appellant at Lemas Estate, Koslanda, which was the address furnished by him (in his original application and in all subsequent correspondence with the department) as his place of residence. Unfortunately the appellant was temporarily absent from Lemas Estate throughout February 1955, and the registered letter containing the notice dated 8th February 1955 never reached him. It was returned to the Deputy Commissioner as " unclaimed " on 24th February 1955. Three months later, the Deputy Commissioner made an order under section 9 (2) refusing the application for registration on the ground that the applicant had failed, within the period specified in section 9 (1), to show cause against the provisional order made against him on 8th February 1955.

Notice of this decision was posted to, and was received by, the appellant at Lemas Estate, and he promptly applied to the Deputy Commissioner for the inquiry to be re-opened on the ground that he had in fact not received the notice dated 8th February, 1955. This application was refused and he now appeals to this Court for a mandatory decree directing the Commissioner to give him an opportunity to show cause (on the merits) against the refusal of his application for registration.

The provisions of the Act which must be examined for the purposes of this appeal are as follows :

Section 9 (1) : Where upon the consideration of any application, the Commissioner is of opinion that a prima facie case has not been established, he shall cause to be served on the applicant a notice setting out the grounds on which the application will be refused and giving the applicant an opportunity to show cause to the contrary within a period of three months from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document