DEVAN PARAMESWARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.1996, to quash the same and to direct the third respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 2.12.1992 for the grant of citizenship forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner's father, Parameswaran is a permanent resident of Trichur District of Kerala. He also owns property in Palakkad District. He got employment as a Clerk in Malaysia. The petitioner was born on 17.9.1964 at Malaysia as his parents were residing at Malaysia at that time. The petitioner was in Malaysia till 1976 and thereafter came to India. He underwent schooling in Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Palavur, Palakkad District of Kerala State and passed SSLC in the year 1982. He also underwent A.I.M.I.E. Course in Coimbatore Institute of Technology and now he is looking after the property of his maternal uncle and factory at Coimbatore as they have no issues. The petitioner further contends that his maternal uncle also died in June 1990. After he came to India in 1976, he had visited Malaysia only for one month during 1979 and 1983. After retirement, his father is also settled at Coimbatore District. The petitioner had obtained a passport from the Malaysian Government and the validity of the sane was periodically extended till 9.7.1993. In the meanwhile, he had applied for Indian citizenship to the third respondent on 2.12.1992 under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act 1955. The third respondent by his letter dated 22.2.1993 had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore to furnish information in terms of the report as called for after due enquiry, with his recommendations. The petitioner further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and submitted a report in favour of the petitioner for the Indian citizenship. The third respondent who is statutorily obliged to pass order has not chosen to pass any order either accepting or rejecting the registration. The petitioner again by his representation to the second respondent pointed out his difficulties in going back to Malaysia as there was no one to look after the estate of his maternal uncle and that he had applied for the Indian citizenship on 2.12.1992. As there was no response, a further reminder was sent on 24.4.1995 to the third respondent. The fourth respondent by memo dated 14.6.1995 directed the petitioner to submit an application for extension of his stay or to leave the country immediately. The petitioner addressed a letter to the third respondent again on 21.6.1995 and 26.7.1996 to take action on his application for citizenship. However, in the mean time, the second respondent, by letter dated 4.1.1996 has stated that the petitioner's stay in India was irregular and directed the petitioner to renew the passport or to leave the country immediately. All the efforts of the petitioner to get a new passport failed and was also rejected by the Assistant High Commissioner for Malaysia in Madras on 13.5.1996. Consequently, the fourth respondent by order dated 28.6.1996 issued a notice to the petitioner to leave India as the petitioner's visa had expired on 30.6.1996. The third respondent has also directed the fourth respondent to initiate criminal action against the petitioner and a criminal case was also registered in Crime No.99 of 1997. The petitioner was arrested on 24.3.1997 and he was remanded to judicial custody. In the said back ground, the petitioner has sought for the relief as aforementioned.

(3.) In the counter filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is stated that till 15.6.1984, the nationals of Commonwealth Nations were not required to obtain a visa to visit India. The requirement of visa for Commonwealth Nations was introduced from 15.6.1984. Extension of stay in India cannot be granted for any foreigner beyond the validity of his passport. As such further extension of stay could not be granted to the petitioner unless he gets his passport revalidated beyond 9.7.1993. Therefore, the petitioner was advised by the second respondent to get his passport renewed beyond 9.7.1993 and as the same was not complied with, proceedings were taken against the petitioner. It is further stated that no application for the grant of Indian Citizenship has been received by the Government from the Collector of Coimbatore.