ABDUL HALIM MIA Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER KATWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katwa, summarily rejected the appellant's application for registration of his name as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act 1955. Mr. Ali contends that the officer acted legally and in excess of his jurisdiction in dismissing the application summarily without making an enquiry. In support of this contention Mr. Ali relies upon the decision in the case of Sk. Hakimuddin v. Dy. Secy. Govt. of West Bengal, 66 Cal WN 126 : (AIR 1961 Cal 299).

(2.) Now Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act 1955 read with Rule 7 of the Citizenship Rules 1956 empowers the Collector to register as a citizen of India, on application made in this behalf, any person who is ordinarily resident in India and who has been so resident for six months immediately before making the application. Section 14(1) provides that the Collector may in his discretion grant or refuse the application and shall not be required to assign any reasons for such grant or refusal. Section 14(2) provides that subject to the provisions of Section 15, the decision of the Collector shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. Under Section 15 any person aggrieved by his order may apply to the Central Government for a revision of the order, and on such application the Central Government may pass such order as it deems fit after considering the application and any report thereon which the Collector may submit, and its decision in this behalf is final. Section 18 empowers the Central Government to make rules. Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules 1956 opens with the note "Collector to make inquiries before registration." The rule provides that the Collector shall before registering a person under Section 5(1)(a) satisfy himself that the person is of Indian Origin and has been actually resident in India for six months immediately proceeding the date of the application, has close connections in India, has an intention to make India his permanent home, as signed the prescribed oath of allegiance, is of good character and is otherwise a fit person to be registered as a citizen of India. Now in 66 Cal WN 126 : (AIR 1961 Cal 299) Sinha, J. held that the summary dismissal of the application under Section 5(1)(a) without making any enquiry was in contravention of Rule 9 and he issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order and directed the Collector to proceed to satisfy himself upon proper enquiry. He said,

(3.) The appellant as also his parents were born in Burdwan. He was in the police service. He opted for Pakistan in 1947, and remained there for six years. He came back to India under a Pakistani passport. He also applied for grant of Indian Citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. That application was dismissed in due course. All these facts show prima facie that the appellant is not citizen of India and, is therefore, a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, served upon the appellant a notice stating that the appellant is a foreigner and directing that he should not remain in India after the expiry of three days from the date of service of the order. Presumably this order was passed under Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act. By Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the onus of showing that he is not a foreigner is on the appellant. In the face of all the facts mentioned above, the appellant still claims that he is an Indian Citizen and not a foreigner. Plainly he raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided conveniently in the Writ Jurisdiction see Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammad, AIR 1961 SC 1526. If the appellant claims even now that he is not a foreigner, his remedy is to file a suit.