Dismissed

Kkrishna M. a. Raihany v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2007WP/1024/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two criminal writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of a letter granting Indian citizenship and a deportation notice. The court held that the petitioner failed to meet the residency and renunciation requirements and lacked justification for the withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were rejected and the request for a stay on the deportation order and further time was dismissed.

Kkrishna M. a. Raihany Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -(1)-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1024 OF 2007

¶4

 Kkrishna M. A. Raihany. ..Petitioner.
 Versus

¶5

 1. Union of India

¶6

 2. State of Maharashtra, &
 3. The Commissioner of Police,
 Mumbai. ..Respondents.

¶7

 ..
 Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.D.J.Khanapurkar,
 Adv. for the Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.D.N.Salvi, Adv. for the Respondent No.1.

¶9

 Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for Respondent Nos.2 & 3-State.
 ..

¶10

 ..
 ALONG WITH

¶11

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1051 OF 2007

¶12

 Kkrishna M. A. Raihany. ..Petitioner.
 Versus
 State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent.

¶13

 Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.D.J.Khanapurkar,
 Adv. for the Petitioner.

¶14

 Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶15

CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND
 SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶16

 -(2)-

¶17

 DATED : AUGUST 07, 2007.

¶18

P.C.:-

¶19

 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the
 Petitioner, the learned Advocate for Union of
 India and the learned APP for the State.

¶20

 2. In Writ Petition No.1024 of 2007 the
 petitioner seeks to quash the communication
 dated 29th August, 2006 sent by the first
 respondent to the petitioner whereby letter
 dated 15th December, 2003 issued by the
 Government of India has been sought to be
 withdrawn. In Writ Petition No.1051 of 2007 the
 petitioner seeks to challenge notice dated 8th
 June, 2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of
 Police, Mumbai whereby the petitioner has been
 directed to leave the country within seven days
 from the date of the receipt of the said notice.

¶21

 3. Though the communication dated 29th
 August, 2006 is sought to be challenged on the
 ground that there was no justification for
 withdrawal of the letter dated 15th December,

¶22

 -(3)-

¶23

 2003 in any public interest as such, further
 that affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent
 discloses unsustainable reasons for withdrawal
 of the letter dated 15th December, 2003 and
 arbitrary exercise of power by the concerned
 authorities in almost revoking the decision to
 grant Indian Citizenship to the petitioner,
 apart from the fact that the affidavit-in-reply
 filed by the respondent itself and copies of the
 communications on behalf of the petitioner made
 to the Consulate General of Islamic Republic of
 Iran do not disclose any justifiable reason for
 withdrawal of the letter dated 15th December,
 2003. The affidavit-in-reply apparently
 discloses various reasons having been considered
 by the competent authorities before arriving at
 the decision to withdraw the letter dated 15th
 December, 2003 and those reasons apparently
 refer to the public interest as such. The
 reasons enumerated in the affidavit-in-reply
 clearly disclose that the petitioner is in habit
 of changing his residential addresses, as also
 furnishing different residential addresses to
 different authorities of the Government and

¶24

 -(4)-

¶25

 further has been visiting to various sensitive
 places in the country. The affidavit-in-reply
 also discloses the fact that at the time when
 the said letter was issued, the petitioner had
 not renounced his Iranian nationality which was
 a pre-condition for grant of Indian Citizenship
 to the petitioner in terms of letter dated 15th
 December, 2003. Even as of today it is not in
 dispute that records nowhere disclose
 renunciation of the Iranian Nationality by the
 petitioner in accordance with the law of that
 country.

¶26

 4. Repeatedly our attention was drawn to the
 correspondences by the petitioner with the
 Consulate General of Islamic Republic of Iran to
 enquire about the procedure for renouncing the
 Iranian nationality, on the ground that the said
 procedure was not known to the petitioner.
 Undoubtedly the letters written on 9th
 September, 2005 and 13th March, 2006 as well as
 9th May, 2006 disclose such an enquiries with
 the Consulate General of Islamic Republic of
 Iran as well as intimation to the Government of

¶27

 -(5)-

¶28

 India about such efforts being made by the
 petitioner. It is pertinent to note that after
 issuance of letter dated 15th December, 2003,
 the first letter inquiring about the procedure
 for renunciation which was written by the
 petitioner to the Consulate General of Islamic
 Republic of Iran was on 9th September, 2005.
 Nothing is placed before us nor the learned
 Advocate has been able to point out any material
 which could reveal that since December, 2003
 till September, 2005 any effort was made by the
 petitioner to ascertain the procedure for
 renouncing the Iranian nationality. Even the
 intimation to the Government of India is only by
 letter dated 13th March, 2006 and not earlier to
 that about so called efforts made by the
 petitioner about the procedure for renouncing
 the nationality of Iran. It is further
 pertinent to note that letter dated 9th May,
 2006 was written through the Advocates and
 Solicitors on behalf of the petitioner. In
 other words the petitioner had taken enough
 assistance from the legal experts in India to
 ascertain about the procedure for renouncing the

¶29

 -(6)-

¶30

 Iranian nationality as long back as in May,

¶31

 2006. In the course the arguments, it was also
 submitted that the petitioner have his relations
 in Iran which apparently discloses enough
 opportunities being available to the petitioner
 to ascertain about the procedure in renouncing
 the Iranian nationality in terms of law in force
 in that regard in Iran with the assistance of
 his relations in Iran. Apparently therefore the
 excuse which is sought to be given and the
 contention which is sought to be raised about
 the ignorance about the law and the procedure
 pertaining to renunciation of the Iranian
 nationality can not be said to be genuine and
bonafide nor it is sufficient to believe that
 the petitioner had infact made sincere and
bonafide efforts to know such procedure at any
 point of time since December, 2003 till this
 date.

¶32

 5. The letter written by the Solicitor on
 behalf of the petitioner on 9th May, 2006, one
 of the paragraph therein reads thus : "In order
 to comply with the above mentioned requisition,

¶33

 -(7)-

¶34

 our client states that time and again he has
 requested your good offices to appraise him of
 the specific procedure to be followed for
 renunciation of the present nationality of Iran.
 Our client states that he has not received any
 response". Having written this letter by the
 Advocates and Solicitors addressed to the
 Consulate General it is unbelievable that the
 Advocates and Solicitors of the petitioner are
 unaware of taping the sources from which they
 can get the information regarding the procedure
 to be followed in terms of Iranian law for
 renouncing the Iranian nationality. That apart
 the above quoted statement on behalf of the
 petitioner clearly discloses admission on the
 part of the petitioner that till May, 2006 the
 petitioner had not renounced the Iranian
 nationality which was a pre-condition for
 consideration of grant of Indian Citizenship to
 the petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply
 discloses the same to be one of the reasons
 considered while taking decision for withdrawal
 of the letter dated 15th December, 2003 and
 communicated to the petitioner under letter

¶35

 -(8)-

¶36

 dated 29th August, 2006.

¶37

 6. The decision by the competent authority
 having been arrived at after following due
 procedure and taking into consideration all the
 facts and circumstances relevant for the
 decision, it is not permissible in writ
 jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision
 or to test the wisdom of the decision by the
 competent authority arrived at after following
 due procedure required to be followed to arrive
 at such a decision. Since no fault can be found
 with the decision making process by the
 concerned authority, there is no case made out
 to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction
 with such a decision of the competent authority.

¶38

 7. Added to above,the copy of the affidavit
 filed by Naval Driver, Assistant Commissioner of
 Police (I), SB, II, CID, Mumbai dated 21st
 December, 2005 which was filed in Criminal Writ
 Petition No.2652 of 2005 apparently discloses
 certain facts which clearly lend support to the
 decision arrived in the matter. The relevant

¶39

 -(9)-

¶40

 paragraphs of the said affidavit read thus :-

¶41

 "4. I say that in the year 2004
 SB/II Branch CID, Mumbai received

¶42

 secret information alleging that the

¶43

 petitioner was indulging in Hawala
 transaction and had made certain

¶44

 visits to Pakistan and Iran. I say

¶45

 that on the basis of the said secret

¶46

 information initially, a secret

¶47

 probe was conducted and it was
 revealed in the said probe that the
 petitioner was not staying at the
 address given to our office i.e.

¶48

 Savala Sadan, 3rd Floor, 15, 16 R.C.

¶49

 Marg Chembur, Mumbai-71 and instead

¶50

 of that he was staying at 503, A,

¶51

 Kusum Apartments, Sector-17, Vashi

¶52

 Navi Mumbai. I say that it is
 revealed during the secret probe

¶53

 that the petitioner has acquired a

¶54

 bogus ration card by forging the

¶55

 signatures & Government steps of
 concerned authorities and the

¶56

 -(10)-

¶57

 address of Vashi, Navi Mumbai was

¶58

 mentioned therein.

¶59

 5. I say that though, the
 petitioner was registered with
 Foreign Regional Registration
 Office, Mumbai he was found to be

¶60

 staying at different places without
 intimation to the concerned
 authorities. I say that our secret
 inquiry also revealed that the
 petitioner was having 6 different
 addresses. I say that it was also
 revealed that the petitioner has

¶61

 also acquired on contract basis 4

¶62

 commercial stalls at Kurla Railway
 Station, Mumbai.

¶63

 6. I say that the petitioner also
 procured driving license from RTO,

¶64

 Ghatkopar, Mumbai, State of
 Maharashtra, by giving his

¶65

 residential address of Savala Sadan,
 3rd Floor, 15, 16 R.C. Marg,

¶66

 -(11)-

¶67

 Chembur, Mumbai-71. I say that the
 petitioner also misrepresented to
 the Election Commission and has got
 enrolled his name in the voting list
 of election ward No.36, Bandra
 Assembly Constituency, Mumbai vide
 voter list Sr.No.1360 by giving an
 address as Municipal House No.33,
 D’Souza House, Sherly Rajan Lane,
 Carter Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50
 by using some bogus/forged
 documents.

¶68

 7. I say that our secret inquiry
 at Kurla Railway Station revealed
 that the petitioner was actually
 staying at G-3, Hill View, Hill
 Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. I say
 that the petitioner has also printed
 visiting card claiming his name to
 be "Krishna". I say that on the
 said visiting card he had given his
 addressed of Kural Railway Station.
 I crave leave to produce the said

¶69

 -(12)-

¶70

 visiting card at the time of hearing

¶71

 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble

¶72

 Court. I say that the petitioner
 used to wear saffron colour Dhoti

¶73

 and Kurta and was donning "Tikka" on
 his forehead posing himself as a
 Hindu religious person. I say that
 the petitioner had neither renounced
 his original religion nor had
 embarrassed the Hindu religion by
 publishing the same in the official
 gazette.

¶74

 8. I say that we also received

¶75

 secret information that the
 petitioner had also visited
 sensitive places of Hindu worship
 such as "Vaishnavadevi", ‘Amarnath’

¶76

 in Kashmir and ‘Akshardham in the

¶77

 State of Gujarat and some other
 sensitive religious places by posing

¶78

 himself as "Krishna".

¶79

 9. I say that it was also noticed

¶80

 -(13)-

¶81

 by our officer that at his residence

¶82

 situated at Hill Road, Bandra, he
 had converted a room as Hindu Temple
 which was being visited/frequented
 by people of suspicious character.
 I further say that it was also
 observed that during the night time
 the petitioner was noticed visiting
 mosque by changing his Hindu
 appearance.

¶83

 8. As regards the communication dated 8th
 June, 2007 directing the petitioner to leave the
 country within seven days, the same has been
 passed in exercise of powers under Section
 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. As the
 matter stands today, it is undisputable fact
 that the petitioner is not a Indian Citizen. It
 is also undisputed fact that the petitioner is a
 Iranian national. It is also undisputed fact
 that inspite of opportunity being given and
 communicated to the petitioner under letter
 dated 15th December, 2003 that in case the
 petitioner desires to acquire Indian Citizenship

¶84

 -(14)-

¶85

 he had to renounce the Iranian nationality, the
 petitioner has not complied with the said
 requirement. The records nowhere disclose any
 renunciation of Iranian nationality by the
 petitioner till this date.

¶86

 9. The narration of the facts and analysis
 thereof hereinabove and reference to Writ
 Petition No.1024 of 2007 would at once reveal
 that the contentions which are sought to be
 raised against the justification for issuance of
 the order dated 8th June, 2007 are without any
 basis and are totally devoid of substance. The
 reasons disclosed above for rejecting the Writ
 Petition No.1024 of 2007 apply with equal force
 for rejection of the Petition against the
 communication dated 8th June, 2007 and need not
 be repeated herein again.

¶87

 10. For the reasons stated above therefore we
 find no case for interference. Both the
 Petitions therefore fail and are rejected.

¶88

 11. At this stage the learned Advocate for the

¶89

 -(15)-

¶90

 petitioner referring to the interim order which
 was passed in the Petition states that the
 petitioner may be granted some time in order to
 take another opinion from the higher Court in
 the matter. The same is opposed on behalf of
 the Respondents. As already observed above, in
 the case in hand it is not in dispute that the
 order of deportation of the petitioner was
 issued as long back as on 8.10.2005. However,
 since certain prerequisites were not complied
 with, pursuant to the order passed by Apex Court
 the said order was not implemented and further
 procedure was followed and show cause notice was
 issued and after complying with the requisites
 of the principle of natural justice and the
 statutory provisions, the order directing the
 petitioner to leave the country came to be
 passed. Meanwhile as already seen above, the
 application for grant of Indian Citizenship did
 not yield fruitful result on account of the
 failure on the part of the petitioner to comply
 with prerequisite for grant of such citizenship.
 The facts narrated in the affidavit of the
 Assistant Commissioner of Police referred to

¶91

 -(16)-

¶92

 above and narrated and also those quoted above
 clearly justify the action taken by the
 concerned authorities. In the circumstances, we
 do not find any case having been made out for
 grant of stay to the order passed today. Hence,
 request for grant of stay and further time in
 that regard is rejected.

¶93

 [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.]

¶94

 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Kkrishna M. a. Raihany v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kkrishna M. a. Raihany v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Datta Shekappa Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lt. Ajay Swarnakar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Baidyanath Lalitmohan Jha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Hindurao Waze Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mastquin Faieem Ansari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath S. Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.