Disposed

T.Abdul Quadir v. Union of India

Kerala HC3 Jul 2009WP(C)/25926/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs to consider an application for Indian citizenship under Section 9(2). The Court directed the First Respondent to decide on the application within six months after giving the petitioner a hearing, while continuing interim protection against deportation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to consider the petitioner's citizenship application on merits within six months after hearing.

T.Abdul Quadir Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 25926 of 2004(J)

¶6

--------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

T.ABDUL QUADIR, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED, AGED 72 YEARS, THAYYIL HOUSE, P.O. MOKERI, (VIA) PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.P.M.PAREETH.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI.

¶14

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR.

¶15

3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PANOOR POLICE STATION, P.O. PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 BY MR. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G, R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU T.K.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C). NO.25926/2004-J:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE DTD. 18/08/2004 ISSUED BY KAZI, KADAYAPURAM JUMA-ATH PALLI, P.O. KOORARA, CHAMPAD, OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND KUNNATHRAVIL SULAIKA.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE VISA NO. P. 305061 ISSUED BY INDIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER AT ISLAMABAD, DTD. 15/04/2004.

¶23

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 17/08/2004 ISSUED BY DR. C.P. NAZIMUDEEN, CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN, THALASSERY IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 9 (2) OF THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT DTD. 25/08/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

W.P(C). No. 25296 OF 2004

¶31

---------------------------------------- Dated, 3^rd day of June, 2009

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner approached this Court praying inter alia to issue a direction or order to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application submitted by him under Section 9(2) of the Indian citizenship Act within a time frame after hearing him. It is also prayed for a declaration that he is an Indian citizen by birth and is entitled to Indian citizenship since his parent, wife and children are Indian citizens. It is also prayed for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 not to arrest and deport the petitioner until a decision is taken on Ext.P4.

¶34

The case of the petitioner is that he is an Indian citizen by birth. According to him, he was born on 12.5.1932 at Mokeri, Thalassery Taluk, Kannur District. He had studied upto IVth standard at pathippalam Lower Primary School at Pathippalam and he could not continue the study due to various reasons and thus he was forced to

¶35

WPC 25926/04

¶36

-:2:-

¶37

quit the village at the age of 20 years. Thereafter he had gone to various places inside and outside India and finally he came back on the basis of a Pakistani passport, which according to him, was obtained for the purpose of coming to his native land. It is his further case that he had married one Kunnathravil Sulaikha, D/o. Moosa Haji, of Mokeri, Panoor on 6.3.1958 who is also an Indian citizen. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born. Ext.P1 is the marriage certificate. It is also claimed that the petitioner has landed property comprised in R.S.No.88/2 of Mokeri village as per registered document No.902/1981 of Panoor Sub Registry. It is also his contention that on the basis of Ext.P2 visa, he reached India on 3.8.2004. Ext.P3 is produced to show the various aliments that he is suffering. The petitioner wanted to reside in his native place as an Indian Citizen. He preferred Ext.P4 application under section 9(2) of the Indian citizenship Act on 25.8.2004 and the same is pending for consideration.

¶38

When the above writ petition came up for

¶39

WPC 25926/04

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

consideration, this Court, by order dated 3.9.2004, ordered urgent notice and also issued a direction to respondents 2 and 3 not to arrest and deport the petitioner until further orders, on condition that the petitioner should report in the Panoor Police Station in Kannur District between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on the first Thursday of every month and shall not leave Kannur District without permission from the second respondent.

¶42

The learned Government Pleader on instruction submitted that the petitioner is scrupulously complying with such direction. Though the copy of the writ petition was received by the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on 1.9.2004 and the service of notice on the respondents are completed, no counter affidavit is seen filed so far. When the matter is taken today for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition may be disposed of directing the Ist respondent to consider Ext.P4 and dispose of the same on merit.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel for the petition as

¶44

WPC 25926/04

¶45

-:4:-

¶46

well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶47

On a perusal of Ext.P4, it appears to me that setting forth the entire grounds in support of his prayer for Indian citizenship, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P4 petition in terms of Section 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act 1955 and under Rule 30 of the Indian Citizenship Rules 1956. It appears that the same was sent through a registered post. In the absence of any adverse allegations or objection, it is only just and proper to direct the Ist respondent to take up Ext.P4 and to pass appropriate orders on merit after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.

¶48

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Ist respondent to consider Ext.P4 on merit after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or his agent and to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which will be produced by the petitioner within 6 weeks from today. Till the disposal of Ext.P4, the interim order passed by this court will continue. If the petitioner fails

¶49

-:5:-

¶50

WPC 25926/04

¶51

to produce this judgment before the Ist respondent as directed, the statutory authorities and the respondents are free to take appropriate steps in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

kvm/-

WPC 25926/04

-:6:-

V.K.MOHANAN, J .

O.P.No.25296 of 2004

JUDGMENT

Dated:3.6.2009.

T.Abdul Quadir v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Abdul Quadir v. Union of India

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

P. Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

V.Ravindranathan Nair Vs State Bank of Travancore

T.Krishnan Vs Secretary to Govt.

Jeevankumar Vs Kancor Flour and Extracts Ltd.

Mariyamma Abraham Vs Union of India

K.P.Ramakrishna Panicker Vs State Bank of Tranvancore