http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  744 of 2007

PETITIONER: K Krishna M.A. Raihany

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/05/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 744  OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 5409 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

        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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 Court.   

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.