ABDUL GAFAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising in this application is with regard to the effect of the change made in the definition of foreigner in the Foreigners Laws (Amendment) Act XI of 1957.

(2.) The petitioner was born in Anjar (Kutch) in 1909. He was educated at Anjar and lived with his paternal uncle one Alimahomed a Sanadi Vakil of Anjar. Until September 1947 he worked as a clerk of his uncle Prior thereto in 1942 he was nominated as a member of the municipality of Anjar. It was said that sometime in September 1947 differences of opinion arose between him and his uncle and therefore he left India and went to Pakistan. He lived in Karachi from September 1947 until June 1956 and during that period he worked as a salesman and maintained himself out of the remuneration earned by him as a salesman. On June 11 1956 he made an application to the Government of India for a permit for permanent resettlement. That was while he was still in Karachi. No such permit has yet been granted to the petitioner. He returned to India on June 14 1956 on the strength of a Pakistani Passport and a C visa obtained by him on June 11 1956 In July 1956 while he was at Anjar an earthquake occurred in consequence of which he lost his mother and also some of his properties Prom June 14 1956 until April 1961; the petitioner was living at Anjar. On April 6 1961 he was served with an order of deportation issued by the government of Gujarat requiring him to quit India within seven days from the date of the service of that order. The question that arises in this petition is whether that order could be validly passed against the petitioner.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Mankad was that as the petitioner was born in the territory of India and was a natural born British subject and had his domicile in this country at the commencement of the Constitution he was a citizen of India under Article 5 of the Constitution. Mr. Mankad also urged that when the petitioner returned to India on June 14 1956 he was not a foreigner under the Foreigners Act 1946 as it stood then. That being so the amended definition of the word foreigner which was brought into force as from January 19 1957 could not alter his status and did not render him a foreigner. Now assuming that the petitioner was not a foreigner when he entered India in June 1956 the question is was he a citizen of this country and if he was not a citizen whether the amended definition of the word foreigner changed his status and rendered him a foreigner.