MOHAMMAD ILYAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the Union of India failed to conform to the principles of natural justice while disposing of the representation of the appellant made under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 read with Rule 30 of the citizenship Rules, 1956.

(2.) According to the appellant, he was born at Hapur in Meerut District. He was domiciled in that city. In 1949, while he was 15 years of age, he came to live with his sister at Delhi. He continued to live at Delhi till March, 1950. In that month there was an outbreak of serious communal disturbances all over Northern India. His sister's family being panic-stricken left for pakistan. They took the appellant who was a minor at that time to Pakistan. But his parents continued to live In India. After some time the appellant was desirous of coming back to India but he was unable to get the necessary permit. Under those circumstances he applied for and obtained a Pakistani passport on 20/08/1953, and after obtaining the necessary visa from the Indian High commission at Karachi, came to India. After the expiry of the period for which visa had been issued to him, the government look steps to deport him to pakistan. At that stage, he made a representation to the Government under section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act contending that he was an Indian citizen and as such he could not be deported. In that representation he asked for an opportunity to personally appear before the Government of India to represent his case and also to adduce such oral evidence as may be necessary. The government of India after examining his representation, rejected the same. It held that he. was not an Indian citizen and therefore the cannot he permitted to stay in this country. Tile contention of the appellant is that the government of India contravened the principles of natural justice in considering his representation inasmuch as it did not afford him an opportunity to appear before the concerned authority to represent his case and further it did not give him an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case.

(3.) If is seen from the application made by the appellant for a visa that the was born on 1/05/1934. It is also seen from that application that he had declared his. Nationality us Pakistani. In that application he had mentioned that his occupation was :