AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner says that he was born on 1/1/1950 at Vattappadom in Vylathur Village of Chavakkad Taluk. Bereft of all details, going by the pleadings, Petitioner reached Karachi in 1979. There he secured a job and subsequently acquired Pakistani passport, on the strength of which, he claims to have visited India on several occasions. On expiry of the passport, the passport was renewed. Thereafter also, he visited India. Although it is the case of the Petitioner that he was misled to acquire the passport, that case of the Petitioner may not be of much importance.
Petitioner says that he reached India on 4/11/2010, and according to him, since then, he has been staying with his wife and children. On arrival in India, he made Ext.P7 application to the 1st Respondent u/s 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Ext.P8 shows that the application was received by the 1st Respondent on 1/12/2010. On 2/12/2010, Ext.P9 order has been issued rejecting the application. In Ext.P9, reference has been made to Section 9 and para 3 and 4A of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. It is challenging Ext.P9 and seeking a direction for reconsideration of Ext.P7 application with notice to him, the writ petition is filed.
The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, though in Ext.P7, he sought an opportunity of hearing, that was not granted. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Ahmed v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1983 KLT 1009, where it has been held that the power u/s 9 is a quasi judicial power and therefore consideration of the application made must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, counsel contends that Ext.P9 order is vitiated for that reason.
In my view, fact that an opportunity of hearing has not been granted to a person by itself will not justify interference with the order passed on the ground that natural justice has been violated. Unless a person who complains of violation of natural justice is able to satisfy this Court that, as a result of denial of hearing, prejudice has been caused to him, this Court should not interfere. In this case, apart from pleading of violation of principles of natural justice, Petitioner has not been able to satisfy nor has any endevaour been made in the pleadings to satisfy this Court, that any prejudice has in fact been caused to the Petitioner.
Even on merits, I am not satisfied that the Petitioner has made out a case. True, u/s 9(2), if any question arises as to whether, when or how any citizen of India has acquired the citizenship of another country, such question shall be determined by the Central Government having regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in that behalf. Although such power of adjudication has been conferred on the Central Government, in this case, admittedly, the Petitioner has obtained a passport from Pakisthan, which was renewed on one occasion. Schedule III which has been framed under Rule 30(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 contains various paragraphs. In paragraph 3, it is provided that the fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a passport from the Government of any other country shall be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country before that date.
Similarly, paragraph 4A provides that notwithstanding anything contained in para 4, a citizen of India who leaves or has left India without a travel document issued by the Central Government and resides outside India for a period exceeding 3 years, shall be deemed to have voluntarily acquired the citizenship of the country of his residence. These two provisions of Schedule III makes it amply clear that the Petitioner has acquired citizenship of Pakistan from where he had obtained passport and where he reached without travel documents and resided for more than three years. If so, Petitioner could not have aspired for any favourable order u/s 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Consequently, on merits, I am not satisfied that the Petitioner has made out a case for interference of Ext.P9 either.
Writ petition is dismissed.