RAMESH CHENNAMANENI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was Indian citizen by birth. It appears, he travelled to Germany to pursue course of study, leading to awarding of Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics. He secured employment as Assistant Professor in Humbolt University in Germany. He took citizenship of Germany in the year 1993. Consequently, he lost the Indian Citizenship. According to the petitioner, he returned to India in the year 2007. He applied for Indian Citizenship on 31.3.2008. On 21.11.2008, the petitioner was asked to furnish the details of his visiting abroad in the last 12 months preceding the date of submission of application. Petitioner replied on 28.11.2008, stating that he has not visited any country/abroad in the preceding 12 months period prior to making application for citizenship. Satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner, vide Certificate No.34 dated 3.2.2009, petitioner was granted Indian Citizenship. In the general elections held in the year 2009 petitioner was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Vemulavada constituency in Karimnagar district. He was also elected in the elections held in the years 2010, 2014 and 2018.

(2.) The 5th respondent Sri Adi Srinivas filed revision under Section 15 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), alleging that the petitioner obtained citizenship certificate by making false representation. Responding to the said revision, a show cause notice dated 31.7.2009 was served on the petitioner. Primarily it was alleged that the petitioner made false representation to secure citizenship and that why action should not be initiated under Section 10(2) and Section 17 of the Act. It appears, an enquiry committee was constituted and the petitioner appeared before the enquiry committee and requested to consider his case under Section 10(3) of the Act. As there was no response to his request, petitioner filed W.P.No.18259 of 2017 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 7.6.2017, directing the respondents therein to consider his application under Section 10(3) of the Act. The enquiry committee submitted its report holding that the petitioner played fraud in securing citizenship. Ignoring the plea taken by the petitioner and accepting the report of the enquiry committee, the competent authority passed order dated 31.8.2017 holding that the petitioner ceased to be a citizen of India. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed review petition under Section 15-A of the Act. Petitioner also filed W.P.No.30601 of 2017 before this Court, praying to quash the order dated 31.8.2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 11.9.2017, directing disposal of the review petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to place material before the Committee in addition to the material already furnished. Respondent No.1 was also directed to ensure proper notice and opportunity to all the parties concerned. The said review petition was dismissed by order dated 13.12.2017, affirming the earlier decision to cancel the citizenship. Challenging the order dated 31.8.2017 and the order in review dated 13.12.2017, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) To complete the narration, the 5th respondent challenged the election of the petitioner in E.P.No.1 of 2010. E.P. was allowed by judgment dated 14.8.2013, setting aside the election of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred Civil Appeal Nos.8431-8432 of 2013 before the Supreme Court. By order dated 11.08.2016, Supreme Court disposed of Civil Appeals as infructuous as the term of the appellant was over. The election of the petitioner in the year 2014 was also challenged in E.P.No.5 of 2014 by the 5th respondent. It appears, 5th respondent also challenged the election of petitioner as MLA in the General Elections held in the year 2018.