MICHAEL ANTHONY RODRIGUES Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenged before Coyajee J. an order passed by the State of Bombay on 17-11-1655 that he shall not remain in India after the expiry of 24 hours from the date on which the order was served on him. This order was made in the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, Foreigners' Act, 1946. The question that was agitated before Coyajee J. was whether the appellant was a foreigner liable to be sent out of the country under the Foreigners' Act, or having acquired an Indian domicile he had become a citizen of India to whom the Foreigners' Act" could not apply. " The learned Judge on a consideration of the materials before him held that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had acquired an Indian domicile and dismissed his petition. The appellant has now come in appeal.

(2.) IN the first place, let us look at the undisputed facts in this case. The petitioner's father, who by nationality is a Goan, has been carrying on business of a tailor in Bombay for the last 40 years. The appellant himself was born in Goa in 1918 and he came to Bombay in 1927 when he was 9 years of age. He was educated in Bombay and having completed his school education in 1936 he joined the business of his father. In 1942 when the War broke out he served in the Royal Indian Force. He obtained a Burma Medal and was retrenched from that service in 1946. A discharge certificate was issued to him and in this certificate he gave as his permanent address his Bombay address for all necessary communications to him. From May 1947 to September 1948 he served with M/s. Turner Morrison and in 1948 he reverted to his father's business. He appears on the Municipal roll as a voter and that goes to show that he enjoys the civic franchise in this city. On these facts the question is whether the domicile of the appellant has been established.

(3.) NOW, in order to determine what is the domicile of a particular person, certain principles have got to be borne in mind. The law attributes to every person, a domicile. In the first, place, there is the domicile of origin. It may be in the country where the person was born or it may be in the country where his parents were born. In this case the appellant was born in Goa and them is no doubt that his domicile of origin is Goa. But although a person may have a domicile of origin, he may acquire what is known as a domicile of choice and that he can only acquire by a conscious act. He must not only give up the country of his origin but he must make up his mind to stay for an indefinite period in the country whore he wants to acquire the domicile of choice. Therefore, when the appellant wishes to establish that his domicile of choice is in India, he has to establish the fact of residence in India and he has also got to establish the animus of intending to reside permanently or for an unlimited time in India. It has been said that the character of the domicile of origin is of an enduring character and the ties that bind you to your country of origin are extremely strong, and therefore the authorities require that the intention to acquire a new domicile must he manifest and carried into execution. The authorities also require that the person acquiring the domicile of choice must show a fixed and settled purpose of residing permanently or for an indefinite time in the country where he seeks to acquire the new domicile. It is equally true that the burden cannot be discharged by merely proving residence however long the duration of the residence may be. What the Court has got to consider is not residence by itself but the quality and character of that residence. If the quality and character of that residence leads to the clear inference that the residence was intended not merely for a temporary purpose but that, that residence was intended in order permanently to live in the place where the person was residing, then the residence itself would have a bearing on the question of the animus.