Criminal Appeal No. 744 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 5409 of
Arijit Pasayat, J
2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition
filed by the appellant.
3. Background facts as projected by
the appellant are as follows:
4. Appellant was born on 28.8.1973
at Mumbai. His school leaving certificate shows that the appellant was
admitted to Karnataka High School at Chembur, Mumbai and left the school
on 29.8.1988. On 4.12.1993 the Reserve Bank of India (for short 'RBI')
granted permission to the appellant under Section 29(1)(b) of the
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'FERA') for acquisition
of shares in business in India. He also entered into catering contract
at a railway station in Maharashtra. On 15.7.2003 the appellant applied
for citizenship under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (for short
'Act'). Initially the State Government wrote a letter to the Central
Government regarding grant of citizenship by naturalistion under Section
6(1) of the Act. A letter was also written by the Under Secretary,
Government of India, stipulating certain conditions for accepting the
prayer of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant got in touch with the
Consulate General of Iran on several occasions. An order of deportation
was passed against the appellant on 7.10.2005. A writ petition was filed
before the Bombay High Court challenging the order. The same was
dismissed on 17.2.2006.
However, this Court allowed the Writ
Petition (criminal) no.17 of 2006 with certain directions. Appellant's
case is that though his presence was required by the police officials,
notices were issued without specifying any reason. Notice was issued by
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai requiring appellant's presence on
3.4.2006. A detailed reply was filed on 4.4.2006.
Warning was issued on 7.4.2006 to
remain present on 10.4.2006. Reply was submitted on that date. On
26.5.2006 notice was issued by the Inspector of Police to the appellant
requiring his presence in the office. On 26.5.2006 notice dated
10.4.2006 was received by the appellant directing him to leave
the country. Reply was submitted by the appellant on 10.6.2006. A Writ
Petition was filed (W.P. 1262/06) with prayers for
(a) grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization;
(b) not to interfere with the appellant's right of residence in India;
(c) not to deport the appellant without following the orders of this
5. By letter dated 29.8.2006, the
Under Secretary, Government of India, withdrew the letter dated
15.12.2003 giving reference to the State Government's letter dated
6.7.2006. On 13.10.2006 the High Court dismissed the writ petition by
the impugned order. On 17.10.2006 notice was issued to the appellant to
leave the country. The SLP was thereafter filed and the notice was
issued on 6.12.2006 granting stay of deportation.
6. According to the appellant there
is no order passed on his application for citizenship. No reason has
been indicated in the communication dated 29.8.2006 as to what was the
basis for holding that citizenship was not to be granted to him in
public interest. Detailed counter-affidavits have been filed by the
Union of India and the State of Maharashtra.
7. However, there is no need to
refer to them in detail.
8. Learned Additional Solicitor
General and the learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra
stated that the communication dated 29.8.2006 copy of which was given to
the appellant is the order disposing of the appellant's prayer for grant
of Indian citizenship by naturalization under Section 6(1) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant stated that even in the counter
affidavits filed there was no specific stand taken that the
communication in question was the order in terms of Section 6(1) of the
Act. In any event, according to him no reasons have been indicated.
9. By way of reply the learned ASG
pointed out that Section 14 of the Act makes the position clear that no
reasons are required to be assigned for grant or refusal the application
under Section 5 or 6 of the Act.
10. It is not necessary to go into
the various points urged in view of the fact that it is accepted by the
learned ASG for the Union of India and the learned counsel for the State
of Maharashtra that the communication dated 29.8.2006 is the order
disposing of appellant's application for grant of citizenship.
11. It is open to the appellant to
avail such remedy as is available in law in view of the said order. We
make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Print This Judgment