CHEELIL THOTTOLIL ASIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's husband is one Moidu Haji. The claim is that he belongs to Parur near Tellicherry, Cannanore District, and that he is having relations and properties in Panur amsom. This Moidu Haji had acquired a Pakistani passport and on the strength of the passport be had been making occasional visits to this country. It is stated that he was employed in Karachi and that by acquiring the Pakistani passport he had not intended to abandon his Indian citizenship. The last time he entered India was on 20-1-1988, when he reached Bombay. Petitioner would contend that Moidu Haji had evinced an intention to acquire Indian passport and that for that purpose he was gathering the necessary papers. It is stated that he was arrested on 2-2-1988 at about 10 a.m. and that he is in the process of being deported out of India. In Para.8 of the original petition the petitioner contends that she reliably understood that her husband entered the territory of India on the strength of a duly issued visa by the Indian Authorities and that therefore the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Cannanore, had no authority to take her husband into custody for the purpose of deporting him to Pakistan "because the period of the vita has not expired." It is noteworthy however, that the original petition is lacking in any details as to when the visa was issued or as to the period of its validity. Of course the petitioner takes refuge for the absence of details on the plea of being an illiterate lady, quite ignorant in these matters, and on the ground that the passport in question has been seized by the Police.

(2.) The prayer in the original petition is four fold; one to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from deporting Moidu Haji, second, directing the first respondent to determine the citizenship of Moidu Haji before deporting him to Pakistan, third, directing the second respondent to release Moidu Haji from custody forthwith and fourth, to direct the respondents not to detain Moidu Haji till the first respondent declares the nature of his citizenship after due enquiry under S.9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The third and fourth prayers do not properly form the subject matter of an original petition of this nature, inasmuch as any release which they envisage should really form the subject matter of a petition for habeas corpus. There is no such prayer in the original petition. I decline to go into those two prayers in the original petition.

(3.) Regarding the second prayer for a direction to the second respondent to determine the citizens hip of Moidu Haji, to which the first prayer is related, it has to be noted that the petitioner's husband has not so far made any application to the first respondent under S.9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 to determine his national status. However, the extreme contention urged by counsel for the petitioner is that before Moidu Haji is deported, there is an obligation cast on the first respondent to decide his national status and unless and until that is decided, he should not be deported.