MOHAMMAD NASEERUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the husband and wife against an order served on them under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Central Act XXXI of 1946, directing the petitioners to leave India within a period specified therein. Writ Petition 810 of 1957 is by the husband, while Writ Petition 122 of 1958 is by the wife. The facts in so far as they are relevant may briefly be stated.

(2.) The petitioners, Nasiruddin and his wife Shafekhan begum, were born in India in or about 1931 and 1937 respectively and it is indisputable that they resided in India after its independence in 1947 and up to the time India was declared a Republic on 26-1-1950. Both the petitioners and their respective parents were natives of Nagina in Uttar Pradesh and though the parents of Nasee-ruddin carried on business in Hyderabad in the name of Calcutta Bakery, their contacts with Nagina were maintained. In 1946 the petitioners were married at Nagina.It may be stated that the petitioners wifes father had settled down in Quetta sometime in 1935 and after the partition of India in 1947 he became a citizen of Pakistan. If is the case of the petitioners that after their marriage, both of them lived in Hyderabad from 1947 till 1952, except for a brief visit by the petitioners in 1951 to Nagina to stay with their paternal grandmother. It is alleged that the wife not having visited her parents from the time she came to Hyderabad, had a sudden desire to see her parents in 1952 and taking advantage of the visit of her brother from Quetta, she left Hyderabad for Nagina with their son Kamruddin.The petitioner-husband went to Nagina to bring her back, but finding that she was not there went to Quetta to bring his wife and child back to Hyderabad, which according to him was on 14-5-1952. The petitioners husband applied for a passport for himself, his wife and child to the Pakistan Government in January 1954 and that a passport was in fact granted to him by that Government in July, 1954, but his application for a lone-term visa to the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan was rejected under instructions from the Government of India by a letter dated 22-7-1954.The Government of Hyderabad also were intimated accordingly. After the grant of the pass-port the petitioner obtained a category C visa on 7-9-1954 in Lahore which visa was valid for a single journey, for a stay at a specified place or places not exceeding three months, After obtaining this visa all of them crossed the Pakistani border into India on 8-9-1954 en route to Nagina. On coming to India, an application was again made for long term visa which was rejected by letter from the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 22-1-1957 stating that his application for permanent settlement in India cannot be granted while in India and that he might renew his request through the High Commissioner on his return to Pakistan.Thus, on the petitioners own showing since reaching India, he has been obtaining extension of his visa in Uttar Pradesh and at Hyderabad. Both the petitioners were given extensions on various dates till 5-7-1957 with a warning that no extension would be given and that the petitioner Nasee-ruddin should leave India before 31-7-1957; but he again applied on 8-7-1957 for extension and on 19-8-1957 an order No. 228 was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Government under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with notifications Nos. 9-2-53-11-1 dated 16/07/1955 and S. R. O. 89 F. 13-13/56 dated 8/01/1957 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, directing the petitioner not to remain in India after three weeks from the date of the receipt of that letter. A similar letter dated 30-11-1957 was served on the petitioners wife Shafekhan Begum on 17-12-57.

(3.) The contentions of the petitioners are, that they did not migrate to Pakistan, much less did they do so with the intention of making Pakistan their permanent home, that they had gone there temporarily after which they found themselves in a predicament occasioned by the changes in the law in India and being unable to get a permit to return to India, they were forced to obtain a Pakistani passport and return to India. They say that in spite of their obtaining the passports in Pakistan and in spite of applying for extension from time to time of the visa and in spite of applying for a long-term visa, which might seem that they were not citizens of India, they in fact never ceased to be citizens of India and that they never did or stated anything which amounted to a renunciation or termination of their citizenship of India, nor did they acquire the citizenship of any other country.