Sher Mohammad vs Government of India and another

Mahajan, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by one Sher Mohammad and is directed against the order of the Central Government dated 19th October, 1962, holding that he had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after 26th January. 1950 and before 19th January, 1955, His case has had a chequered career. He succeeded in this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 63 of 1960 which gives all the facts in detail. The basis on which he succeeded was that only the Central Government could determine the question about the citizenship and as the order of deporation was passed against him without determining the question of citizenship by the appropriate authority the order was of no consequence.

After the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal the Central Government served a notice on the Petitioner u/s 9 of the Citizenship Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 is as follows:

(2) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired she citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf.

The rules that are prescribed for the purpose of Sub-section (2) are to be found in Schedule 3 of the Citizenship Rules and the relevant rules are rules 4 and 5. The Central Government after obtaining the explanana-of the Petitioner has passed the impugned order.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that no notice u/s 9 was served on him and that the Central Government had passed the order against him holding him to be a Pakistan national on mala fide grounds. It is also contended that the order of the Central Government is not a speaking order and is merely a stereotyped order and therefore is of no consequence.

So far as the first contention of the learned Counsel is concerned, namely, that no notice was served on the Petitioner asking him to show cause why his citizenship should not be terminated is unfounded. In the return filed by the State it is categorically stated that the notice was served on the Petitioner by one Assistant Sub-Inspector Pritam Singh and he handed over to him a copy of that notice. It is also significant that the Petitioner did make a representation to the Central Government. This he could have only done if he had notice that the proceedings u/s 9 were pending against him. He has not disclosed as to from what source he came to know that the proceedings against him were pending against him u/s 9. All that be has stated is that from a private source he came to know about these proceedings. That source has not been disclosed. That being so, I must accept the statement in the return that Pritam Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector served a notice on him and gave him a copy of the same. Therefore the first contention is repelled.

So far as the second contention is concerned, namely, that the order of the Government is mala fide, there are ho facts proved on the record from which an inference of mala fide can be raised. The mere fact that the Government has pursued the matter to the bitter end will not per se make the order mala fide. Therefore I repel the second contention as well.

The third contention is that the order is not a speaking order and that no reasons are disclosed for holding that the Petitioner is a Pakistan national. I am unable to agree with this contention. In the order it is clearly stated that the Petitioner obtained a short term visa on Pakistan passport to enter India and under Rule 5(d) which is in these terms-

Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4, a citizen of India shall be deemed to have voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan-

(a) * * *

(b) * * *

(c) * * *

(d) if he has obtained a temporary permit for entry into India from Pakistan

This ground by itself is enough to hold that he had acquired Pakistan citizenship. Moreover, all the grounds on which the Petitioner claimed indian citizenship were stated by him in his representation made to the Government of India and after considering the same the order in question was passed. It is also pertinent that there is no rule requiring the Central Government while passing an order like the impugned one to state reasons, though it is proper that they do so. So far as the present case is concerned it must be held that the reasons have been stated. That being so, there is no force in this petition. The same fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 50/-.