ATAU RAHEMAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the son of one Niyamat (son of Makdum Bux) who is at present detained in police custody at Nagpur. It would appear that the petitioner has made a petition to this Court under Section 491, Criminal P. C. , for the release of Niyamat and that an order has bean passed by this Court (Misc. or. case No. 13/51) stay it g she removal of Niyamat out of the jurisdiction of this Court till the disposal of that application.

(2.) THE reason why the applicant is detained is that having been convicted of an offence under Section 5, Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act by a Magistrate Second Class, on 24. 11. 1950, he has been arrested under Section 7 of that Act with a view to being deported from India. The petitioner states that Niyamat after being arrested on 8. 1. 1951 was taken to the borders of India but was again brought back to Nagpur on 17. 1. 1951 and is since then in police custody. Why Niyamat was brought back to Nagpur after being taken to the borders of India has not been explained by the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner now wants that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State of Madhya Pradesh and District Magistrate Nagpur, ordering them to allow Niyamat to remain and settle in India and if necessary, "ordering them to take all possible steps to facilitate to stay of Niyamat in India. " We have considered a similar matter recently in Mohommad alias Muthubhai v. High Commissioners for India in Pakistan Misc. Petn. No. 46 of 1950, D/- 2. 1. 1951, and come to the conclusion that, under Section 1, Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, a person who has committed an offence under Section 5 of the Act, or contravened the terms of his permit, is liable to be removed from India. We are, however, told by the learned Counsel that with regard to the very persona who were applicants before us in Muthubhai's case, an interim order has been issued by the Supreme Court staying their deportation from India and that there are observations in that order which would suggest that a citizen of India cannot be deported. That order is not before us.