Disposed

Naveen Manomohanan v. the District Collector,Kannur & Ors.

Kerala HC29 Jun 2011WP(C)/10047/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the State Government (5th respondent) to forward the petitioner's citizenship application along with the District Collector's favorable report to the Central Government (4th respondent) within two weeks, ensuring final disposal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 5th respondent to forward application and report to 4th respondent within two weeks; 4th respondent to finalize proceedings within two months.

Naveen Manomohanan Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 10047 of 2011(E)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

NAVEEN MANOMOHANAN, 'SAHANA', P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR-670 006.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR-670 001.

¶13

2. THE ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, BYE-PASS ROAD, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶14

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶15

4. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001.

¶16

5. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶17

R1, R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU R2 & R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN, C.G.C

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1 COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER AS A SINGAPOREAN CITIZEN ISSUED BY THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE, DATED 29/1/1981.

¶23

P2 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 30/8/1986.

¶24

P3 COPY OF THE PAGE NO.3 OF THE S.S.L.C. BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P4 COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 5/12/2001.

¶26

P5 COPY OF THE MBA COURSE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GURUVAYURAPPAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, COIMBATORE, DATED 21/5/2003.

¶27

P6 COPY OF THE RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS PARENTS, DATED 24/12/2008.

¶28

P7 COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 26/12/2001

¶29

P8 COPY OF THE INCOME TAX PAN CARD OF THE PETITIONER.

¶30

P9 COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE ISSUED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, DATED 26/4/2000.

¶31

P10 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REGISTRATION FOR PASSPORT ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, DATED 19/2/2010.

¶32

P11 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER,DATED 25/2/2010.

¶33

P12 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGISTRATION AS A CITIZEN OF INDIA BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 6/3/2010.

¶34

P13 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 26/3/2010.

¶35

P14 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.20598/2010, DATED 2/8/2010.

¶36

P15 COPY OF THE RE-SUBMITTED APPLICATION COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS,DATED 2/8/2010.

¶37

P16 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 27/8/2010.

¶38

P17 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 5/12/2010.

¶39

P18 COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 14/12/2010.

¶40

sts

¶41

2/-

¶42

-2-

¶43

WP(C)NO.10047/2011

¶44

P19 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT,DATED 25/10/2010.

¶45

P20 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DATED 15/5/2010 NO.S.O.1115(E) ALONG WITH THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS TO THE SECRETARY OF HOME DEPARTMENT OF KERALA, DATED 22/9/2010.

¶46

P21 COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 7/1/2011.

¶47

P22 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT, DATED 21/1/2011.

¶48

P23 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 17/2/2011.

¶49

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 10047 OF 2011

¶56

Dated this the 29^th day of June 2011

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the non finalisation of the proceedings with regard to the application preferred by him seeking for registration as a citizen of India.

¶59

The case of the petitioner is that, he was born in Syngapore on 29-01-1981. The father of the petitioner is a citizen of India, while the mother, though of Indian origin, is a Singaporean Citizen. The petitioner completed his studies in India right from his early childhood and Ext.P1 is the Infant Passport issued in the year 1986. The description of facts with regard to the various exhibits produced is not necessary for the purpose of adjudication of this case, in so far as the grievance of the petitioner appears to be the delay/refusal on the part of the 5^th respondent in forwarding the recommendation sent by the 1^st respondent District Collector, pursuant to the inquiry made in connection with the issue projected. The learned counsel submits that, pursuant to the inquiry made by the District Collector, recommendation in the form of report dated 21-01-2011 (Ext.P22) was submitted before the 5^th respondent, wherein it has been categorically stated that the District Collector has recommended

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 10047/2011 - 2 -

¶61

for granting the 'Indian citizenship' as applied for. In spite of the said report, the proceedings have been caused to be stalled by virtue of an arbitrary exercise of power by the 1^st respondent, who issued Ext.P23 dated 17-02-2011, giving instruction to delete the name of the petitioner from the Ration Card and also from the voter's list and to report compliance. The said proceedings have been stayed by this Court as per the interim order dated 30-03-2011, which is very much in force as on date.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the authority to consider the application for registration as an 'Indian Citizen' is vested with the Central Government and by virtue of the relevant provisions of law, particularly under Section 12(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, the 5^th respondent is to forward the Ext.P22 report/recommendation made by the District Collector, with remarks, if any, to the 4^th respondent and it is for the 4^th respondent to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶63

Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 5 and also the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4.

¶64

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the proceedings forming the subject matter of Ext.P22 have to be

¶65

W.P.(C) No. 10047/2011

¶66

¶67

taken to the logical conclusion, in view of the fact that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the course pursued for finalising the registration as an 'Indian Citizen'. It is for the 5^th respondent to forward the report of the 1^st respondent with necessary remarks along with the application preferred by the petitioner for consideration by the competent authority, who is the 4^th respondent.

¶68

In the said circumstances, the 5^th respondent is directed to forward the application preferred by the petitioner along with Ext.P22 report of the 1^st respondent/District Collector and also the remarks/recommendations to the 4^th respondent, which shall be done forthwith, at any rate within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on receipt of the same, the matter shall be considered by the 4^th respondent passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, which shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of the proceedings as above.

¶69

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶70

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶71

vdv

Naveen Manomohanan v. the District Collector,Kannur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Manomohanan v. the District Collector,Kannur & 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

Antony Ben Vs Dr.Nivedita P.Haran & Others

Baby Girija Vs Indira

Pduthukkudi Narayanan Vs Pattathari Kuttiraman

P.v.Vijayakumar Vs Smt.Vijayakumari

Vinod.S. & Others Vs University of Calicut & Others

M/S.Falcon Infrastructures Ltd. Vs Union of India and Others