K MOHAMMAD AHMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here is a petitioner who craves for Indian citizenship and cries for the determination of his rights by the Central Government. The Government dealt him a hard blow on harsh technicality. And so, to the brief facts :

(2.) When India became free, Mohammad Ahmed, the petitioner was an Indian citizen. He was born in 1938 in Kerala. He had thus his roots in India where his parents, brothers and sisters were also born. He married a woman also bora in India. He came from a poor family and he was illiterate, poverty preventing him from prosecuting his studies beyond the second standard. He was, however, enterprising and even adventurous. "He plunged into the deep without fear" and reached Bombay and served as a supplier in a small hotel till 1953. In 1953, one Seethi Koya Thangal, also from his village promissed him batter prospects and took him to Karachi where he worked in the Muslim Hotel till 1956. He had to return to India and he did. He says, on the advice of his friends he put his mark on several blank papers, got his travel docu-ments and reached his homeland. He state that he did not have any intention to change his domicile or acquire the citizenship of Pakistan. He desires to remain in India He was sought to be deported to Pakistan. He took advice from his friends; and he filed applications before the Central Government. He filed an application under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, and he seems to have filed another; application under Section 5 (1) of the same Act for registration as an Indian citizen. The petitioner has repeated in his applications that he continues to be an Indian citizen. When eventually his application under Section 9 (2) was rejected on 30-10-80 as per Ext. P2, and deportation was issued on 28-12-99 (Ext. P3), the present writ petition was filed. He has got a stay and he continues in India.

(3.) Exhibit P2 states that the petitioner's application under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act cannot be entertained in view of his application under Section 5 (i) of the Act. The reason seems to be that the petitioner's "plea of having been an Indian citizen stands repelled" in view of his application under Section 5 (1) of the Act which posits that he is a foreign citizen and therefore no question can arise at all for determination by the. Central Government of his national status.