K L MODI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shri K. L. Modi s/o Shri Lakshmi Chand Modi has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus and/or a prohibition restraining the Union of India from interfering with the petitioner's fundamental right to enter into India and to continue to stay in this country. In the alternative, it has been prayed that a writ of mandamus be granted directing the Union of India to determine the question as to whether the petitioner could be said to have ceased to be a citizen of India or could be treated a foreigner and also to treat him as a citizen until such determination is made in accordance with law.

(2.) According to the averments In the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be a citizen of India by virtue of the fact that he was bom in 1911 in Palanpur (now in the State of Gujarat). At the time of the commencement of the Constitution of India, the petitioner's domicile was thus within the territories of India. His ordinary place of business and residence is also claimed to be in Bombay within the State of Maharashtra where he has his home at 69, Kamal Building, Block No. 15, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay-6. In 1953, so proceed his averments, the petitioner went to Singapore in search of business enterprise on the basis of a passport granted to him as an Indian citizen by the Union of India Passport No. A 005758 issued on 28-1-1949 at Bombay). He carried on extensive business in Singapore between 1953 and 1958 and stayed there most of the time on account of exigencies of business, but he continued to possess the Indian domicile where his wife and dependent children as also some other members of his family continued to reside. The petitioner used to come to India every now and then. The passport issued to the petitioner by the Union of India expired on 28-1-1954 and a fresh passport valid till 1959 was issued to him by the Indian Authorities in Singapore. In 1959, the political situation in Singapore was such that the petitioner had either to leave Singapore leaving his entire pro- perty and interest there unattended and return to India or to acquire Singapore citizenship. Compelled by these adverse circumstances, according to the petitioner's averment, he involuntarily acquired the citizenship of Singapore, but he never relinquished Indian citizenship, nor had he the intention to do so. Throughout his stay in Singapore, he had animus revertendi in relation to India which continued to be his home. His wife did not acquire Singapore citizenship because there was no such compulsion felt by her. In 1959, the petitioner wanted to come back to India to stay here for some time with his family members, but he was told that, by virtue of his Singapore citizenship, he could not leave Singapore without obtaining a Singapore passport, with the result that he was compelled to obtain a Singapore passport. At the present moment, according to the petitioner's averment, he holds a Malaysian passport valid up to 1969. This passport is also stated to have been obtained by the petitioner under compulsion and stress of circumstances without any intention to relinquish his Indian citizenship. Between October, 1959 and February, 1967, he claims to have made 15 trips to India where he stayed with his family for different periods. Lastly he came here on 4-3-1967, but was detained by the Indian Immigration Authorities in Bombay on 6-3-1967 and was thereafter deported to Singapore. According to the petitioner, he was deported without assigning any reason, but presumes that it was done because he was treated as a foreigner. Since then many enquiries have been made by the petitioner's Solicitors from. the Government of Maharashtra and also from the Government of India, but without any satisfactory result. It is on these averments that the reliefs, as mentioned above, are claimed in these proceedings.

(3.) In the affidavit in reply sworn by a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, a preliminary objection has been taken to the competence of this writ petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact have been raised which cannot be decided by this Court and it is added that it is neither feasible nor possible for this Court to decide them. The Central Government, it is said, is in possession of definite information that the petitioner is a citizen of Singapore and this fact has also been ascertained by the Central Government from its diplomatic office in Malaysia and Singapore. The petitioner obtained certificate No. 44190 dated 23-1-1958 from the Government of Singapore after getting himself registered as a citizen of that country, and on such acquisition, the petitioner ceased to be a citizen of India by virtue of Section 9 (1) of the Citizenship Act of 1955. He is on this premise described to be a foreigner and his allegation to the contrary is controverted. The assertion by the petitioner that the acquisition of Singapore citizenship by him was involuntary, has also been denied. The fact that even now the petitioner holds Malaysian passport valid upto 1969, is also relied upon in support of the plea that the petitioner has relinquished Indian citizenship and it is urged that Indian citizenship automatically terminated under Section 9 (1) of the Citizenship Act the moment the petitioner acquired Singapore citizenship by registration. The petitioner's intention in regard to the acquisition of Indian citizenship and also the fact that the petitioner visited India on several occasions, have been described to be irrelevant because a foreigner can also visit India on the strength of a valid passport. The petitioner being a foreigner according to the reply, the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Art. 19 of the Constitution are stated not to be available to him.