NASIRUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against two separate orders dated 29th August 1964 whereby the Central Government, acting under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Rule 30 of the Citizenship rules, 1956, determined that Nasiruddin (petitioner 1) and his wife Smt. Hasinabi (petitioner 2) had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after 26th january 1950 and before 10th January 1956. The petitioners have prayed that these orders be called up and quashed by certiorari and the respondents be directed to forbear from taking against the petitioners any action grounded upon those orders.

(2.) THE material facts in so far as they are not disputed are these. When the constitution came into force, the petitioners were Indian citizens living in India with their children. In the year 1954, the petitioner 2 and her children went to pakistan. In February of the following year, the petitioner 1 too went to Pakistan. The two petitioners and their children then came to India on a Pakistani passport no. 398721 dated 10th January 1956 and category C Visa Nos. 14882 and 14883 dated 23rd February 1956, the object of coming to India purporting to be a visit to their relations. In February 1959, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur (respondent 3) served on the petitioners an order purporting to have been passed under the Foreigners Act, 1946, requiring them to leave India. Thereupon, the petitioners and their children filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 118 of 1959 challenging that order. Following the decision of this Court in Firoz v. Sub-Divisional Officer 1960 MPLJ 1246: (AIR 1961 Madh Pra 110), that order was set aside on the view that a decision of the" Central Government under Section 9 (2)of the Citizenship Act, 1955, to the effect that the person concerned had acquired the citizenship of another country was a pre-condition for the passing of any such order. By two separate notices Exs. P-1 and P-2 dated 13th January 1964 issued by the central Government, the petitioners were intimated that a question had arisen whether, and, if so, how they had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and, therefore, they might send any representation they desired to make and also any other material they wished to rely upon in support of their contention that they had not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. The petitioners then sent their representations Exs. P-3 and P-4 claiming inter alia an opportunity to produce further evidence and a personal hearing. By a communication Ex. P-5 dated 12th June 1964, they were intimated that it was not possible to give them either an opportunity to be heard in person or one for production of further evidence, but they were at liberty to submit additional material in the form of affidavits in support of their case. While protesting against this denial of the opportunity asked for by them, they submitted their affidavits Exs. P-8 to P-12. That was followed by the two impugned orders dated 29 August 1964, which have been challenged in these proceedings.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the father of petitioner 2 took her and her children to Pakistan by receiving her as to the destination of their journey, the petitioner 1 went to Pakistan to bring back his wife (petitioner 2) and the children and he succeeded in so doing by obtaining a Pakistani passport from a Dalai. The petitioners challenged the orders dated 29 August 1964 on the following amongst other grounds : (i) Since the manner in which the questions mentioned in Section 9 (2)of the Act have to be determined has not been prescribed in the rules made under Section 18 (2) (h) of the Act, the question whether the petitioners had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan could not be determined at all. (ii) The two orders dated 29 August 1964 are bad because, in the two notices dated 13 January 1964, the Central Government did not indicate that it appeared to it that the petitioners had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. (iii) In determining the questions mentioned in Section 9 (2) of the Act, the Central Government acts as a tribunal and is, in that capacity, obliged to adopt in the enquiry a quasi-judicial approach. (iv) The two impugned orders are vitiated because the petitioners were not given an adequate opportunity to prove that they had not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and, in particular, the fact that the pakistani passport and visas were forged or ungenuine documents,