MUHAMMED @ KUNHU MUHAMMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI),

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner says that he was born on 1/1/1950 at Vattappadom in Vylathur Village of Chavakkad Taluk. Bereft of all details, going by the pleadings, Petitioner reached Karachi in 1979. There he secured a job and subsequently acquired Pakistani passport, on the strength of which, he claims to have visited India on several occasions. On expiry of the passport, the passport was renewed. Thereafter also, he visited India. Although it is the case of the Petitioner that he was misled to acquire the passport, that case of the Petitioner may not be of much importance.

(2.) Petitioner says that he reached India on 4/11/2010, and according to him, since then, he has been staying with his wife and children. On arrival in India, he made Ext.P7 application to the 1st Respondent under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Ext.P8 shows that the application was received by the 1st Respondent on 1/12/2010. On 2/12/2010, Ext.P9 order has been issued rejecting the application. In Ext.P9, reference has been made to Section 9 and para 3 and 4A of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. It is challenging Ext.P9 and seeking a direction for reconsideration of Ext.P7 application with notice to him, the writ petition is filed.

(3.) The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, though in Ext.P7, he sought an opportunity of hearing, that was not granted. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Ahmed v. State of Kerala and Ors.,1983 KerLT 1009, where it has been held that the power under Section 9 is a quasi judicial power and therefore consideration of the application made must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, counsel contends that Ext.P9 order is vitiated for that reason.