GULAM RASOOL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on this appeal by which the appellant has prayed that his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition be set aside. The appellant in the petition prayed principally for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from compelling the appellant to leave India or arresting or deporting him out of its territories, as also a writ of mandamus to the Senior Superintendent of police, Agra, to forbear from interfering with the appellant's right to settle or reside in any part of India. The claim was put forward on the ground that the appellant was a citizen of India when the Constitution came into force, that he went to Pakistan sometime in the year 1955, that he never migrated from India and never acquired the nationality of Pakistan or any other foreign country, that he returned to India in 1956 and that since then he has a right to continue to live as an Indian Citizen. The learned Single Judge on examining the facts as stated in the affidavit filed by the appellant, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the rejoinder affidavit, came to the view that it may be held in favour of the appellant that in September, 1956, the appellant was not a foreigner within the meaning of that word as then used in the Foreigners Act, but proceeded further to hold that at least now the appellant is not a citizen of India and, consequently under the new definition introduced by the foreigners Laws (Amendment) Act, 1957, he is a foreigner, so that action being taken against him by the respondents is justified. It was on this view that the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) In this appeal when learned counsel addressed us, he proceeded on the assumption that the finding of the learned Single Judge that it might be held that the appellant was not a foreigner in September, 1956, necessarily implies that he was a citizen of India at that time. This assumption in our opinion is not at all justified. The question whether the appellant was or was not a foreigner in September, 1956 may be independent of the question whether he was or was not a citizen of India. The provisions of the Foreigners' Act as they stood in September, 1956, defined the word 'foreigner' as meaning a person who

(3.) Under the circumstances it is clear that there is no force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.