High Court Bench dismissed a review petition and application for condonation of delay. The court held the earlier order declining passport relief was not erroneous on facts and citizen status is governed by the Indian Constitution and Citizenship Act.
Dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the review petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.10307 OF 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2615 OF 2007
Mrs.Suvarna P. Kulkarni .. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others .. Respondents.
Mr.A.M. Jolshi for the Petitioner.
Mr.R.C. Master for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 18TH OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :
1. The application and review petition are
disposed of by this common order :
i) By speaking order dated March 30, 2007, we
had noted that the petitioner was born admittedly
after coming into force of the Constitution of India
and was holding Rhodesian passport and was residing
in Rhodesia, a central African country. For the
reasons set out in our order, we have declined the
relief sought for an Indian Passport. We have
pointed out that it will be open to the petitioner
to make out a case before the competent authority
either for the claim of Indian Passport or for
2
Indian Citizenship. Accordingly, the petition was
dismissed.
ii) Along with the petition, the petitioner had
annexed a copy of judgment of another Division Bench
of this Court being Writ Petition No.8432 of 2004
dated 14-2-2005. We had not adverted to that
petition as admittedly on facts there, the parents
of the petitioner in that petition, were Indian
Citizen by birth and also domiciled and in that
circumstances, the Court there had recorded a
finding that the Petitioner was a citizen of India
by birth.
iii) At the hearing of this petition, learned
counsel draws our attention to the order of another
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.3703 of 2004 in respect of some of the
petitioner. A learned Division Bench there had
directed issuance of a passport by holding that as
the British Passport had not been renewed, the
petitioner would be entitled to be treated as a
Indian Citizen. That judgment was not brought to
our attention.
. Even otherwise, Indian citizenship is
governed by the provisions of Indian Constitution
and the Indian Citizenship Act.
3
iv) At any rate, the ground now given cannot be
a ground to hold that the order suffers from an
error of law apparent on the face of record.
v) In the light of that, the application for
condonation of delay as also the review petition are
dismissed.
(F.I. REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition and application for condonation of delay are maintainable given the prior dismissal of the passport petition.
Whether the young petitioner is entitled to Indian citizenship and passport relief under the Indian Citizenship Act.
Mrs. Suvarna P. Kulkarni
Union of India
F.I. Rebell
J.P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court