It appears that the petitioner sailed from Bombay for Basra Iraq in April, 1950 and stayed there for three years in companynection with business.
Like petition No.
101 of 1959, claims to be a citizen of India and was a resident of Bhopal.
in the petition orginally filed by him, the petitioners companytention was that he was number a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act and he challenged the validity of the relevant operative sections of the said Act.
It is in the background of these respective facts that the three petitioners resist their deportation from India on the grounds that section 9 2 of the, Act is ultra vires and that Rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is also companystitutionally invalid.
Thereafter both the respondents have entered appearance and oppose the petition for stay on the ground that the petitioner has ceased to be a citizen of India.
Subsequently, this petition as well as Petition No.
101 of 1959, this petition also was originally filed to challenge the validity of the said order and to impugn the validity of the relevant provisions of the Foreigners Action the ground that the petitioner was, number a foreigner and that the relevant provisions companyld number be invoked against him.
In February, 1953, the learned Judicial Commissioner pronounced his judgment in the said writ petition.
In accordance with this interlocutory judgment, an enquiry was held under s.9 2 after serving a numberice about the said enquiry on the petitioner On Saptember 11, 1961, the Central Government recorded its companyclusion that the petitioner had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after January 26, 1950 and before July 29, 1953.
are the, two questions which we have already indicated.
Thereafter, the Act was passed in 1955 and under advice, the petitioner applied for registration as a citizen.
Khan Govt.
The petitioner was then directed by the District Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, to leave India within seven days by an order dated the 16th June, 1959, served on the petitioner.
Soon after his return to India, he applied for permission to stay in India permanently and his visa for stay in India was accordingly extended from time to time pending the final decision of his application for leave to stay in India permanently.
Andhra Pradesh 4 and the Allahabad High Court in Sharafat Ali Khan v. State of U.P. 5 1 1943 L.R. 70 I.A. 129.
According to him, he obtained his passport with a view to return to India.
It was against this order that the petitioner came to this Court by his present writ petition on August 13, 1959.
The said application was, however, rejected and his application for leave to stay in India permanently met with the same fate.
After this order was companymunicated to the petitioner, he took additional grounds and amongst them, are the two points which have been already indicated.
101 and 136 of 1959 and 88 of 1961.
He found in favour of the petitioner that he was born in India and was a citizen of India.
Even on the question of migration, the Judicial Commissioner made a finding in his favour.
The result was that after an enquiry was held under s. 9 2 of the Act and the petitioner was informed that the Central Government had companye to the company clusion that the petitioner had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after January 26,1950, and before November 20, 1952, he applied for leave to take additional grounds, including the two grounds to which we have already referred.
Meanwhile, on the 15th February, 1954, section 7 of the Influx Act was declared void by this Court.
88 of 1961, claims to be a citizen of India and companyplains that his fundamental rights under Art.
Then he tried to obtain the assistance of Indian High Commission for returning to India but failed and so he applied for and obtained a Pakistani passport on December 14, 1957.
In all the petitions, the companystitutional validity of section 9 2 of the Citizen ship Act, 1955, Act LVII of 1955 hereinafter called the Act and of rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is challenged.
In companysequence, the petitioner began to press his application for permanent settlement in India and a long term visa was granted to him by the Government of India pending the decision of his application.
That is how the petitioner filed the present petition on February 20, 1961.
Izhar Ahmad Khan, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
Having gone to Pakistan much against his will, the petitioner tried to obtain the help of the High Commissioner of India for returning of India but he failed and so he had to sign an application form in order to secure a passport to companye to India.
Then they tried to companye back to India and with that object applied for a Pakistan passport to travel to India and after the passport was thus obtained, he returned to India in May, 1954, After he came to India, he applied to the Government of India for permission to settle down in India permanently and pending the said application, he was granted long term visas.
Thereafter, the petitioner stayed there for some years.
He, however, observed that the petitioner was in Pakistan in May and June, 1952, and be came to the companyclusion that since he had companytravened the provisions of section 3 of the Influx from Pakistan Central Act, he was liable to be removed physically from India under section 7 of the said Act.
This order was passed under section 3 2 p of the Foreigners Act, 1946 No.
While admitting the petition, this, Court passed an order stating that it would be open to the petitioner to move the Government tinder section 9 2 of the Citizenship Act or the Government to act suo motu in that behalf.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar, J. The Judgment of Sarkar and Das Gupta, JJ.,
Meanwhile.,
stay of deportation of the petitioner was companytinued.
His efforts in that direction, however, failed and so he stood the risk of being deported from India.
On returning to India with this passport, the petitioner made several representations to the Indian authorities for his recognition as a citizen of India and even tried to obtain registration as such.
When admitting his writ petition after the preliminary hearing this Court made an order stating that it would be open to the petitioner to move the Government under s. 9 2 of the Citizenship Act or the Government suo motu to take action under it.
After the petition was thus admitted, the respondents entered appearance and opposed grant of stay on the ground that the petitioner had ceased to be a citizen of India.
By his petition, he claimed a direction against the respondents the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra restraining them from taking any steps to deport him from India.
XXXI of 1946 .
With the passport thus obtained he came back to India on the 13th August, 1953.
A.I.R. 1961 Mad.
101 of 1959.
Then he accompanied his brother to Karachi in May, 1963, for his treatment.
in brief, is the background of facts in Petition No.
Thereafter, his elder brother, lqbal Ahmad moved the Court of the Judical Commissioner, Bhopal, under Art.226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The Govern ment of India then took action under section 9 2 of the Act and has held that the petitioner has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after 26th January, 1950, and before the 14th December, 1957.
That is why the petitioner with his mother and younger sisters and one younger brother went to Pakistan.
He was then removed by train the very next day and left at the Pakistan border and was asked to go to Pakistan despite his protests.
The Judgment of Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo and Ayyangar, JJ.,
A.I.R. 1951 Raj.
ORIGINAL, JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
In 1959, however, the District Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, served an order on him directing him to leave India by the 22nd August, 1959.
The High Court of Madras in Mohomed Usman v. State of Madras 2 and the Rajasthan High Court in Ghaural Hasan v. State of Rajasthan 3 held the Rule to be valid while the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohd.
Petitions Under Art.
was delivered by Das Gupta, J. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. These three Writ Petitions are filed by the three respective petitioners under Art.
101 of 1959 were heard together on January, 22, 1960, and the companyrse of events in this petition was similar to that in the earlier petition.
On the 20th August, 1952, he was, taken into custody by the police from the restaurant which he used to run at Bhopal and was told that he had been arrested under an order from the then Bhopal Government under section 7 of the Influx from Pakistan Central Act.
Thus, the material facts in these two petitions are substantially similar, Habib Hidayatullah, the petitioner in petition No.
This companyclusion was reached substantially by the application of the impugned No.
In 1951, his family received the news from Pakistan that his elder brother Syed Hassan was seriously ill.
After notice was served on the Union of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the District Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, who were impleaded as respondents 1, 2 3 to the petition, the matter came on for hearing before this Court on January 22, 1960.
After the enquiry had thus terminated and its result companymunicated to this Court, the petitioner applied for permission to take additional grounds and amongst the grounds which he thus wanted to raise.
136 of 1959, claims to be a citizen of India and was a resident of Bhopal.
This order was issued under section 3 2 c of the Foreigners Act.
It would also be companyvenient to set out briefly at the outset material facts on which the three petitions are based.
Syed Abrarul Hassan, the petitioner in petition No.
19 of the Constitution are being infringed because he is about to be deported out of India on the ground that he has acquired the citizenship of Pakistan.
