ABDUL MANNAN KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed by one Abdul Mannan Khan who claims to be a citizen of India. He was born in Umarkhel, police station Sharan in the district of Ghazni in the State of Afghanistan. The petitioner's father had migrated to Banaras some 30 years ago and lived in house No. 66/3, Bania Bagh from where he carried on business in various parts of India and made the said house his permanent home. The petitioner was brought up by his father at Banaras and he too settled down there. The petitioner, in fact, had made Banaras his home and permanent residence with no intention of leaving the place. During the 30 years' stay in India he has hardly visited Afghanistan six times, and during the last 22 years he probably visited only twice or thrice. After the coming of the Constitution, the petitioner considered himself to be a domicile of India and its citizen. When the Citizenship Act of 1955 came into Force, the petitioner thought of getting himself recorded as a citizen of India and therefore he applied on 20-8-56 for the grant of certificate of naturalization under Act LVII of 1955 and got a notice published in the Daily Bharat of Varanasi dated 9th and 11th December 1956. The afore-said application for citizenship was rejected by the Government of India, and information was communicated to the petitioner by Office Memorandum No. 556 CP/VIII-D dated 28-6-57 by the Under secretary of the Home Department, U. P. Government. Thereafter on 2-9-57 the petitioner was served with a notice dated 30-8-1957 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi asking him to leave this country within a month from the date ot the service of the notice. He had been further told that if he failed to quit India within that period ha would render himself liable to deportation. The petitioner had obtained a passport and visa which gave him a right to stay in India from 31-8-57 to 31-8-58. The petitioner claimed to be a citizen of India under Article 5(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that it was only the Union Government, who could direct his deportation and such power could not be exercised by the Senior Superintendent of police; therefore this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) A revision was also filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, but he received no reply from the Ministry of foreign Affairs.

(3.) Union of India through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New Delhi is one of the opposite parties to this petition. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is situate at New Delhi and is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. It has been held in numerous cases and I have dealt with it at length in Altafur-Rahman v. Collector, Central Excise Civil Misc. Writ No. 1747 of 1957, D/- 7-1-1960 : (ATR 1960 Allahabad 551), that if a party is not within the jurisdiction of this Court it is not open to this Court to issue any writ or direction. In the cir-cumstancas no writ or direction can be issued against opposite party No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that he is prepared to delete opposite party No. 1 from the array of opposite parties to this petition.