GHAURUL HASAN AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 5 April 1961

772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] I96I gold plated but a gold plated article can only be a gold plated article. Therefore, it seems to me Venk~;es:~rnn, that item 45(3) was int~nded to apply to fountain· Collector of pens simpliciter, that 1s, without gold plating or Customs, Bombay other embellishments which might properly bring v. them under another item in the schedule. This, in Ramchand Sobhraj my view, would best harmonise the different items Wadhwani in the Tariff schedule and carry out the intention 50[,,,., ][J. ]of the legislature. This can be illustrated by an example. ·Suppose a fountain-p-en was studded with diamonds. Could it then be said that the legislature • intended to impose on them a duty of 30 per cent. ad valorem under item 45(3) and the diamonds were not intended to be assessed under item 61(10) which deals with jewels and provides for a higher duty. I do not think that a possible view to take. ·

I think, therefore, that the assessment in the pre-sent case under item 61(8) was proper. I would hence allow the appeal.

BY COURT: In accordance with the opinion of the majority, this appeal is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

GHAUitUL HASAN AND OTHERS

April 5. v. THE STATE OF RAJ ASTHAN

(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR,

K. C. DAS GUPTA and

N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)

Citizenship-Order of registration by Collector-Cancellation of such order by him-Validity of cancellation-Citizenship Act, z955 (57 of 1955), ss. 5(r)(a), ro(2)(a).

The petitioners were granted certificates of registration as Indian Citizens under s. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by the Collector of Nagaur. Later the Collector passed orders cancelling the certificates. The power to cancel was based on I ~

..

'

• L

Ghaurul /lasan v. The State of Rajasthan SARKAR, J.-The petitioners were born in India before the commencement of the Constitution. Some-time 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 that they came, was in April, 1956. Each time they came to India, they did so on passports issued by the Government of Pakistan.

Sarkar ].

In December, 1956, they applied to the Collector of Nagaur in Rajasthan where they resided, for registra-tion as citizens of India. On December 19, 1956, the Collector of Nagaur issued certificates of registration to them under s. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act,, 1955. Subsequently on February 5, 1957, two of the peti-tioners made applications for grant of citizenship certificates to their minor children under s. 5(l)(d) of that Act. On February 6, 1957, an ()fficer of the Collectorate of Nagaur took back the registration certificates issued to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on the 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1962]

r96I representation that they were required for recording in -H them the names of the minor children for whose - 1auruv. asan registration as citizens of India applications had been The State of made. On February 8, 1957, notices were issued by Rajasthan the Collector of Nagaur cancelling the registration certificates issued to the petitioners and directing them Sarkar J. to return to Pakistan within three days.

Gh -H - 1auruv.

The petitioners have presented this petition for a writ quashing the order of the Collector of Nagaur cancelling their registration as citizens of, and requir-ing 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 sub-section (2) started with the words "Subject to the pro-visions of this section" and contended that the powers under that sub-section could, therefore, be exercised subject to the other provisions of s. 10. They then referred to sub-sec. (1) of s. 10 which so far as relevant provided, "A citizen of India who is such ......... by registration otherwise than under ......... cl. {a) of sub-section ( l) 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 sec-tion". They contended that they became citizens of India by registration under s. 5{l)(a) of the Act and , '

•

I

..

1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

they could not be deprived of their citizenship under sub-section (2) of s. 10. "t . 0 n t e acts o t ls case l ls unnecessary h f f h[. ]to express any opinion on these contentions. In any event, under cl. (a) of sub-section (2) of s.10 a citizen can be depriv-ed of his citizenship only if it is proved that the regis-tration was obtained by means of fraud, false repre-sentation 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 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.

z96z

Gh auru 1 [H ]asan v.

The state of Rajasthan

Sarkar J.

The only other point that was taken by the respon-dents was that the Collector having the power to grant the registration certificate under the Citizenship Act hfl.d 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 s. 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 cancelling the registration of the petitioners as citizens were wholly illegal and unsupportable and they are accord-ingly set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to the costs of this application.

Petition allowed .