WA/204/2011 of Adi Srinivas Vs Dr. Ramesh Chennamaneni on 29 December 2011

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.204 OF 2011

DATED:29.12.2011

Between:

Adi Srinivas … Appellant

And

Dr. Ramesh Chennamaneniand others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURAND

THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.204 OF 2011

JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur)

This writ appeal is directed against an interlocutory orderdt.3.12.2010 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No.4879 of2010 and W.V.M.P. No.4135 of 2010 in W.P. No.3737 of 2010.

2. Ordinarily, we would not have interfered with an interim order butwe find, unfortunately, that the order rejecting the application forvacation of stay is a non-speaking order and despite affidavits havingbeen filed by the appellant (respondent No.3 before the learned singleJudge) and the official respondents, they have not been considered atall.

3. The allegation against the present respondent No.1 (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the writ petitioner’) is that though he stood for election asa Member of the Legislative Assembly and was declared elected, hewas not a citizen of India.

4. The rival candidate, i.e., respondent No.3 before the learnedsingle Judge (the appellant before us) who was impleaded on3.12.2010, preferred an election petition challenging the election of thewrit petitioner and that election petition is still pending. Simultaneously,he also moved an application before the Central Government pointingout that the writ petitioner was not entitled to Indian citizenship. It wasalleged that the writ petitioner had not resided in India continuouslythroughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the dateof application made by him for grant of citizenship and that the writpetitioner had misled the Central Government by stating that he had in fact resided in India throughout the period of twelve months immediatelypreceding the date of the application.

5. On the basis of the complaint, enquiries were conducted by theCentral Government and they resulted in information that the writpetitioner had undertaken two long visits abroad during the period oftwelve months immediately preceding the date of making the citizenshipapplication, i.e., on 31.3.2008. A show cause notice was then issued tothe writ petitioner and he was asked to explain why action underSections 10 and 17 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred toas ‘the Act’) be not taken against him. The writ petitioner responded tothe show cause notice and stated that he had gone abroad within theperiod of one year immediately preceding the date of the application.

6. The official respondents then issued a Memorandum dated 5.2.2010 to the writ petitioner drawing attention to Sections 10(4) and 10(5) of the Act, which read as under:

10(4). Before making an order under this section, theCentral Government shall give the person against whom theorder is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him ofthe ground on which it is proposed to be made and, if the orderis proposed to be made on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) other than clause (e) thereof, of his right, uponmaking application therefor in the prescribed manner, to havehis case referred to a committee of inquiry under this section.”

10(5). If the order is proposed to be made against aperson on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) otherthan clause (e) thereof and that person so applies in theprescribed manner, the Central Government shall, and in anyother case it may, refer the case to a Committee of Inquiryconsisting of a chairman (being a person who has for at leastten years held a judicial office) and two other membersappointed by the Central Government in this behalf.”

7. Through the Memorandum, the writ petitioner was given anopportunity as provided by Section 10(4) of the Act to apply to have hiscase referred to a committee of inquiry. Instead of responding to theMemorandum, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition. An ex parte staywas granted by the learned single Judge in respect of the Memorandumand that interim stay was confirmed by the order under appeal, which also dismissed an application for vacation of the interim stay.

8. That is how the matter is under appeal before us at the instance ofrespondent No.3 before the learned single Judge.

9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has urged before us thatrespondent No.3 cannot carry on two parallel remedies, namely, oneunder the Representation of the Peoples Act by way of filing an electionpetition and the other under the Citizenship Act.

10. We cannot accept this contention on behalf of learned counsel forthe writ petitioner. The two proceedings are entirely different and thereis no inter-link between them.

11. We also find that there is nothing to show that the Memorandumdt.5.2.2010 is in any manner without jurisdiction, nor does it prejudicethe writ petitioner in any manner whatsoever. He has merely beenasked whether he would like to have the case determined by acommittee of inquiry or not. All that the writ petitioner has to do is torespond to this Memorandum and appropriate action will be thereaftertaken. If it is found ultimately that the writ petitioner is a citizen of Indiaand has rightly been granted citizenship, no further action is required tobe taken. However, if it is found that the writ petitioner is not entitled toIndian citizenship, necessary action will be taken by the officialrespondents.

12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner then contends that thisinquiry has already been gone through on an earlier occasion and thereis no reason for the official respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry, afterhe has been granted citizenship.

13. We cannot agree with learned counsel for the writ petitioner in thisregard. It is quite clear from the facts on record that the writ petitionermade an application for grant of citizenship on 31.3.2008 and he hasstated in his reply, which has been mentioned in the Memorandumdt.5.2.2010, that he left India and visited abroad during the period of oneyear immediately preceding the date of application. The effect of this, ofcourse, will have to be determined by the official respondents and we see no reason to interfere in their exercise of jurisdiction under the Act.14. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to continue with theinterim stay granted by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal isallowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge dt.3.12.2010is set aside.

15. The writ petitioner is given fifteen days time to give a reply to theMemorandum dt.5.2.2010 and the official respondents will then takeaction in accordance with law. No further orders are required by us. 16. The miscellaneous application is also disposed of.

__________________MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ

29-12-2011

bnr

_______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J