http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GHAURUL HASAN AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/1961

BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) DAS, S.K. GUPTA, K.C. DAS AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA

CITATION:  1967 AIR  107            1962 SCR  (1) 772

ACT: Citizenship-Order of registration by  Collector-Cancellation of  such order by him-Validity  of  cancellation-Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955), ss. 5(1)(a), 10(2)(a).

HEADNOTE: The petitioners were granted certificates of registration as Indian  Citizens  under s. 5(1)(a) of the  Citizenship  Act, 955, by the Collector of Nagaur.  Later the Collector passed orders canceling the certificates.  The power to cancel  was based on                             773 S.   10  (2)(a) Of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and S.  21  Of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Held,  that S. 10(2(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, had  no application  for, apart from any other considerations,  that section could apply only where the registration was obtained by  means of fraud, false representation or  concealment  of any material fact and no such thing had been proved. The  Collector  had  no power under S.  21  of  the  General Clauses   Act,   1897,  either  to  cancel  the   order   of registration  as citizens which had been made by  him  since the  orders  mentioned in that section are not of  the  kind contemplated by S. 5 Of the Citizenship Act. The orders canceling the registration are set aside.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 60 of 1958. Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. H.   J. Umrigar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. S. K. Kapoor and P. Gupta, for the respondents. 1961.  April 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR,  J.-The  petitioners were born in India  before  the commencement  of the Constitution.  Sometime in  1947,  they went away to the territory since included in Pakistan.  They used  to come to India from time to time and the  last  time

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

that they came, was in April, 1956.  Each time they came  to India, they did so on passports issued by the Government  of Pakistan. In December., 1956, they applied to the Collector of  Nagaur in  Rajasthan  where  they  resided,  for  registration   as citizens  of India.  On December 19, 1956, the Collector  of Nagaur issued certificates of registration to them under  s. 5(l)(a)  of  the  Citizenship Act,  1955.   Subsequently  on February  5, 1957, two of the petitioners made  applications for  grant  of  citizenship  certificates  to  their   minor children under s. 5(l)(d) of that Act.  On February 6, 1957, an  officer  of  the Collectorate of Nagaur  took  back  the registration certificates issued to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on the 774 representation that they were required for recording in them the  names of the minor children for whose  registration  as citizens  of India applications had been made.  On  February 8,  1957,  notices were issued by the  Collector  of  Nagaur canceling  the  registration  certificates  issued  to   the petitioners and directing them to return to Pakistan  within three days. The  petitioners  have presented this petition  for  a  writ quashing  the  order of the Collector  of  Nagaur  canceling their  registration  as citizens of, and requiring  them  to leave,  India.  The respondents to this petition  originally were  the  State of Rajasthan and the Collector  of  Nagaur. Subsequently,  under  our order notice of the  petition  was given to the Union of India and the Union has appeared. The  only  question  is  whether  the  cancellation  of  the registration  of the petitioners as citizens of  India,  was valid.   It was said on behalf of the respondents  that  the Collector  had  power to cancel the  registration  under  s. 10(2)(a)  of the Act.  That provision states, amongst  other things,  that  the Central Government may by  order  deprive certain  citizens  of India of their citizenship "if  it  is satisfied  that  the registration was obtained by  means  of fraud,  false representation or concealment of any  material fact".  The petitioners" answer to this contention was  that the  cancellation  of  their registration  was  not  by  the Central   Government  but  by  the  Collector.   They   also contended  that their registration as citizens could not  be cancelled  under  sub-sec. (2) of s. 10.  They  pointed  out that  subsection (2) started with the words "Subject to  the provisions  of this section" and contended that  the  powers under that subsection could, therefore, be exercised subject to  the  other provisions of s. 10.  They then  referred  to sub-sec. (l) of s. 1.0 which so far as relevant provided, "A citizen of India who is such by registration otherwise  than under  cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of s. 5 of this Act  shall cease  to  be a citizen of India if he is deprived  of  that citizenship by an order of the Central Government under this section".  They contended that they became citizens of India by registration under s. 5(l)(a) of the Act and                             775 they  could not be deprived of their citizenship under  sub- section (2) of s. 10. On  the facts of this case it is unnecessary to express  any opinion  on these contentions.  In any event, under cl.  (a) of sub-section (2) of s. 10 a citizen can be deprived of his citizenship  only if it is proved that the registration  was obtained   by  means  of  fraud,  false  representation   or concealment  of  any  material  fact.   This  power  cannot, therefore,   be   exercised   unless   such   fraud,   false representation or suppression of a material fact exists.  It

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

was  contended by the respondents that the  petitioners  had obtained  registration as citizens of India  by  suppressing the fact that they had earlier applied to the Government  of India for long term visas for permanent settlement in  India which  had been refused by that Government.  The  making  of the  previous applications and their rejection are no  doubt material  facts.   The contention however that  these  facts were concealed is clearly unfounded.  It has been proved  to our   satisfaction  by  the  production  of   the   original applications for registration made. by the petitioners  that they  had  mentioned the fact that  their  applications  for permission to settle permanently in India had been  rejected by the Government.  As we understood learned counsel for the respondents, he also accepted this position. The  only other point that was taken by the respondents  was that   the   Collector  having  the  power  to   grant   the registration  certificate under the Citizenship Act  had  by virtue  of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, and apart  from s. 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, the power to cancel it.  We are  entirely  unable to agree that a. 21 conferred  on  the Collector  any  such power.  The orders  mentioned  in  that section  are not orders of the kind contemplated in s. 5  of the Citizenship Act. It  seems  to  us therefore that the  orders  canceling  the registration  of  the petitioners as  citizens  were  wholly illegal  and  unsupportable  and they  are  accordingly  set aside.   The  petitioners will be entitled to the  costs  of this application. Petition allowed. 776