HADI HASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case, Hadi Hasan, was taken into custody by the Government for the purpose of being sent back to Pakistan. Thereafter he filed the present writ petition on the allegation that he was born at Bara Banki on the 19th April, 1940, and was a citizen of India. His parents were born in India and were citizens of India till their death. The petitioner had been residing at Bara Banki on the 26th of January, 1950. Towards the close of 1954 or the beginning of 1955 he went to Pakistan in connection with his business on a temporary visit. At that time the petitioner was a minor. While in Pakistan the petitioner made several applications to the Indian Mission at Karachi to afford passage to the petitioner to India but he was unsuccessful. As a result, the petitioner had no other alternative but to apply for a Pakistani Pass-port. He obtained this Passport on the representation that he was a Pakistani citizen and according to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite-party, the year of birth given there was 1935 and not 1940. He was granted a Pass-port on the 25th May, 1955. Thereafter he was also granted a visa. On the basis of the aforesaid Pass-port and visa the petitioner entered India on the 17th July, 1960. According to the visa, he could stay in India only upto the 16th December, 1960. As he over-stayed in India, he was prosecuted for the same and convicted by the trial Court under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment. He was, however, acquitted in appeal by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the question of acquisition of Pakistani nationality by him had not then been decided by the Central Government as provided by Section 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act. Thereafter the State reported the matter to the Central Government for a decision by it under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act. In the meantime, the State authority started taking preliminary steps for the purpose of deporting him. This led to his filing the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the Union of India, opposite-party No. 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposite-party No. 2, and the District Magistrate, Bara Banki, opposite-party No. 3, restraining them from arresting the petitioner and deporting him to Pakistan. There was a further prayer that in case the Central Government happened to pass an order under Section 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act during the pendency of the writ petition, the said order may also be quashed by a writ of certiorari. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition the Central Government did pass an order deciding that the petitioner had acquired Pakistani nationality. This order is dated the 28th December, 1963, and has been filed on behalf of the opposite-party. According to the said order, the petitioner has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after the 26 January, 1950, but before the 25th 1955.

(2.) THE first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the order passed by the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act is bad in law. Section 9(2) provides as follows :-

(3.) LASTLY , learned Counsel, argued that the declarations made by the petitioner in his Pakistani Pass-port were erroneous and incorrect and should, for that reason, be ignored. In a matter like this, it is not for this Court to appraise evidence in these proceedings. That was a matter for the Central Government to determine. If the Central Government have given a decision in the matter it has to be treated as final by this Court. The matter cannot, therefore, be reopened in these proceedings without contravening the express provisions of law as contained in Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act read with Rule 30 framed thereunder.