SOUMEN PAUL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Affidavit of service be kept with the record. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.

(2.) In this writ application it is the contention of the petitioner that despite preferring a revision under section 15 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 challenging the decision refusing the grant of Indian citizenship as passed under section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') as communicated by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas by his communication order dated 4th June, 2001 as yet, nothing has been communicated to the petitioner about the fate of such revision. At the same time the petitioner has assailed the communication of the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South) whereby and whereunder it was only communicated that the petitioner's application for grant of Indian citizenship was rejected. The learned advocate for the Union of India is present and he frankly submits that no instruction has been received from his clients and accordingly he cannot assist the Court. From the impugned communication of the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South) appearing at page 50 of annexure P-5 against which the revision was filed by the petitioner under the said Act, it appears that no reason was assigned as to why the petitioner's application for grant of citizenship in terms of section 5(1)(a) of the said Act was rejected. Section 5(1)(a) of the said Act only provides satisfaction of two conditions for grant of the citizenship, namely, the person must be of Indian origin and secondly a continuous stay of five years. In the instant case, it appears from the submission that the petitioner's parents were of Indian origin as they were born in undivided India. After partition, parents remained in Pakistan where the present petitioner was born on 30th December, 1955. About 5 years continuous stay in India, it appears from submission of petitioner that taking into account of time as consumed to submit M. Phil thesis as a scholar of University of Pune being duly authorised to do such under Government of India's Scholarship Scheme, 1983-84 and the award of Ph.D from said University in the year 1989 as well as the period of stay till date of application for grant of citizenship, petitioner has satisfied said condition. Hence, for adjudication of any application under the said Act for citizenship the concerned authorities are required to satisfy on those two points. But very surprisingly in the instant case though the petitioner earlier moved this writ Court about the inaction of the authorities, no order assigning the reason rejecting the prayer of the petitioner has been served. Right to know the reason is a basic fundamental right. Reliance may be placed to the judgment in the case Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1558 wherein it has been settled that right to information and right to be informed reason, have its strong ground in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the case Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC 190, the Apex Court on application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India held that right to know is available to the person concerned who would suffer any decision. In the instant case though petitioner is a non-citizen but still Article 21 of the Constitution of India is applicable in his case with full vigour. In terms of the Apex Court judgment passed in the case Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) & Ors., reported in (2000)2 SCC 465 wherein while interpreting the word 'life' as appearing in Article 21 of the Constitution of India qua the factum of payment of compensation of rape victim of a Bangladeshi citizen in Railway Yatri Nivas, Howrah, the Court held that in terms of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the life of the particular lady was disturbed and/or deprived of without any fair procedure of law. Applying such test, in the instant case, accordingly the authorities concerned were bound to assign the reason to the petitioner. With reference to the decision as reached by them rejecting the application for citizenship.

(3.) In that view of the matter the impugned decision as communicated by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas ex facie bad in law and violative of the constitutional mandate as there is no reason assigned. In view of non-assignment of the reason, the petitioner has been deprived of from getting prior opportunity to file a revision even in terms of section 15 of the said Act by opposing the grounds which became hindrance before the authorities concerned in the matter of allowing the application of the petitioner's citizenship. Hence, by due to non-assignment of the reason the petitioner has also been deprived of from exercising his statutory right under section 15 of the said Act rightly and properly.