THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.204 OF 2011 DATED:29.12.2011 Between: Adi Srinivas … Appellant And Dr. Ramesh Chennamaneni and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.204 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) This writ appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dt.3.12.2010 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No.4879 of 2010 and W.V.M.P. No.4135 of 2010 in W.P. No.3737 of 2010. 2. Ordinarily, we would not have interfered with an interim order but we find, unfortunately, that the order rejecting the application for vacation of stay is a non-speaking order and despite affidavits having been filed by the appellant (respondent No.3 before the learned single Judge) and the official respondents, they have not been considered at all. 3. The allegation against the present respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the writ petitioner’) is that though he stood for election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and was declared elected, he was not a citizen of India. 4. The rival candidate, i.e., respondent No.3 before the learned single Judge (the appellant before us) who was impleaded on 3.12.2010, preferred an election petition challenging the election of the writ petitioner and that election petition is still pending. Simultaneously, he also moved an application before the Central Government pointing out that the writ petitioner was not entitled to Indian citizenship. It was alleged that the writ petitioner had not resided in India continuously throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of application made by him for grant of citizenship and that the writ petitioner had misled the Central Government by stating that he had in fact resided in India throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of the application. 5. On the basis of the complaint, enquiries were conducted by the Central Government and they resulted in information that the writ petitioner had undertaken two long visits abroad during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of making the citizenship application, i.e., on 31.3.2008. A show cause notice was then issued to the writ petitioner and he was asked to explain why action under Sections 10 and 17 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) be not taken against him. The writ petitioner responded to the show cause notice and stated that he had gone abroad within the period of one year immediately preceding the date of the application. 6. The official respondents then issued a Memorandum dated 5.2.2010 to the writ petitioner drawing attention to Sections 10(4) and 10(5) of the Act, which read as under: 10(4). Before making an order under this section, the Central Government shall give the person against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground on which it is proposed to be made and, if the order is proposed to be made on any of the grounds specified in sub- section (2) other than clause (e) thereof, of his right, upon making application therefor in the prescribed manner, to have his case referred to a committee of inquiry under this section.” 10(5). If the order is proposed to be made against a person on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) other than clause (e) thereof and that person so applies in the prescribed manner, the Central Government shall, and in any other case it may, refer the case to a Committee of Inquiry consisting of a chairman (being a person who has for at least ten years held a judicial office) and two other members appointed by the Central Government in this behalf.” 7. Through the Memorandum, the writ petitioner was given an opportunity as provided by Section 10(4) of the Act to apply to have his case referred to a committee of inquiry. Instead of responding to the Memorandum, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition. An ex parte stay was granted by the learned single Judge in respect of the Memorandum and that interim stay was confirmed by the order under appeal, which also dismissed an application for vacation of the interim stay. 8. That is how the matter is under appeal before us at the instance of respondent No.3 before the learned single Judge. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has urged before us that respondent No.3 cannot carry on two parallel remedies, namely, one under the Representation of the Peoples Act by way of filing an election petition and the other under the Citizenship Act. 10. We cannot accept this contention on behalf of learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The two proceedings are entirely different and there is no inter-link between them. 11. We also find that there is nothing to show that the Memorandum dt.5.2.2010 is in any manner without jurisdiction, nor does it prejudice the writ petitioner in any manner whatsoever. He has merely been asked whether he would like to have the case determined by a committee of inquiry or not. All that the writ petitioner has to do is to respond to this Memorandum and appropriate action will be thereafter taken. If it is found ultimately that the writ petitioner is a citizen of India and has rightly been granted citizenship, no further action is required to be taken. However, if it is found that the writ petitioner is not entitled to Indian citizenship, necessary action will be taken by the official respondents. 12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner then contends that this inquiry has already been gone through on an earlier occasion and there is no reason for the official respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry, after he has been granted citizenship. 13. We cannot agree with learned counsel for the writ petitioner in this regard. It is quite clear from the facts on record that the writ petitioner made an application for grant of citizenship on 31.3.2008 and he has stated in his reply, which has been mentioned in the Memorandum dt.5.2.2010, that he left India and visited abroad during the period of one year immediately preceding the date of application. The effect of this, of course, will have to be determined by the official respondents and we see no reason to interfere in their exercise of jurisdiction under the Act. 14. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to continue with the interim stay granted by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge dt.3.12.2010 is set aside. 15. The writ petitioner is given fifteen days time to give a reply to the Memorandum dt.5.2.2010 and the official respondents will then take action in accordance with law. No further orders are required by us. 16. The miscellaneous application is also disposed of. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 29-12-2011 bnr