LAWS(P&H)-1966-4-21

MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 07, 1966
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances in which the impugned order dated 25th February, 1965 (annexure A to the writ petition) was passed by the Central Government under section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) read with rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Central rules, may first be set out.

(2.) NOTICE dated 11th Agrahanya 1885 (corresponding to 2nd November, 1963 A. D.) under Section 9 (2) of the Act was served by the Central Government on mohammad Ibrahim petitioner informing him that the question as to whether and if so how the petitioner had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan had arisen and that the Central Government proposed to determine the said question and calling upon the petitioner to submit to the Government of Rajasthan for onward transmission to and consideration of the Central Government within one month of the service of the notice on the petitioner any representation which the petitioner might wish to make in the matter and to submit any other material which the petitioner might wish to rely upon in support of his contention that he had not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. A detailed representation dated January 18, 1964 covering 12 typed foolscap pages was submitted by the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. In the said reply the petitioner alleged, inter alia, that he and his family members did not obtain a passport from Pakistan with the desire to obtain Pakistan citizenship but only under forced circumstances detailed in his said reply with the object of getting out of Pakistan and coming back to India which was the petitioner's birth place. In those circumstances, it was alleged in the said reply, the petitioner could not be said to have "voluntarily acquired the citizenship of pakistan". According to the petitioner he was forced to take the passport as there was no other wayout for him to get back to this country. He specifically averred in his written reply why in those circumstances no presumption about the petitioner having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after the 26th January, 1950 could be raised. The detailed facts on the basis of which it was alleged that the petitioner had been forced to receive the Pakistan passport were set out in the written reply. Towards the close of the written statement submitted by the petitioner he prayed for a chance of hearing being given to him and for being permitted to be represented by his learned Advocate, Shri M. M. Tewari, Bar at Law of Jaipur. A specific prayer for holding a proper enquiry in accordance with the Citizenship rules after hearing the arguments and allowing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to produce his evidence both oral and documentary was made in unequivocal terms. On January 25, 1964 the Central Government addressed a communication to the Rajasthan Government desiring the Slate Government to inform the petitioner in connection with his request for an opportunity to be heard in person and to produce further evidence in his defence that it was not possible to grant his request but that he may submit within a fortnight additional material which he might desire to submit in the form of affidavits. On the receipt of the abovesaid instructions from the Central Government the rajas-than authorities wrote to the petitioner letter dated February 20, 1964 which is quoted below verbatim :---

(3.) WITH letter dated 11-3-1964 the petitioner forwarded an additional affidavit dated 9-3-1964 to the Rajasthan Government for onward transmission to the central Government. In the said covering letter dated 11-3-1964 the petitioner stated that he would be submitting: further documents and affidavits later but that the personal hearing asked for by the petitioner should be afforded to him either by the Government of Rajasthan or by the Government of India in accordance with the rules. It is, however, not disputed that the petitioner did not follow up the above said communication by any further affidavit, or material. Ultimately the impugned order dated February 25, 1965 (Annexure A) was passed by the Central Government which reads as follows :---