Case: Mohd. Ilyas Vs. Union of India and Another

2. According to the appellant, he was born at Hapur in Meerut District. He was domiciled in that city. In 1949, while he was 15 years of age, he came to live with his sister at Delhi. He continued to live at Delhi till March, 1950. In that month there was an outbreak of serious communal disturbances all over Northern India. His Sisters family beingleft for Pakistan. They took the appellant who was a minor at that time to Pakistan. But his parents continued to live in India. After some time the appellant was desirous of coming back of India but he was unable to get the necessary permit. Under those circumstances he applied for and obtained a Pakistani passport on August 20, 1953 and after obtaining the necessary visa from the Indian High Commission at Karachi, came to India. After the expiry of the period for which visa had been issued to him, the Government took steps to deport him to Pakistan. At that stage, he made a representation to the Government took steps to deport him to Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act contending that he was an Indian Citizen and as such he could not be deported. In that representation he asked for an opportunity to personally appear before the Government of India to represent his case and also to adduce such oral evidence a may be necessary. The Government of India after examining his representation, rejected the same. It held that he was not an Indian citizen and therefore he cannot be permitted to stay in this country. The contention of the appellant is that the Government of India contravened the principles of natural justice in considering his representation inasmuch a it did not afford him an opportunity to appear before the concerned authority to represent his case and further it did not give him an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case.3. It is seen from the application made by the appellant for a visa that he was born on May 1, 1934. It is also seen from that application that he had declared his Nationality as Pakistani. In that application he had mentioned that his occupation wasService J. B. Manan Confectionery, Murich Bazar, Sukkar.The visa was applied for a period of three months only. The laces that he desired to visit were mentioned therein as (1) Hapur to see his father and (2) Aligarh to see his sisters husband. It may be noted that at that time the appellant obtained the passport as well as the visa, he was a major though at the time he went to Pakistan, he was a minor.

Court's reasoning:
13. On the allegations made above the appellant challenged by means of a suit the order made by the central Government holding that he had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. That suit was dismissed and the judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed both in first appeal as well as in second appeal.14. On his own showing the appellant had voluntarily applied for and obtained the Pakistani passport. If he was an Indian citizen and that he happened to be in Pakistan, the appropriate course for him was to apply for entry permit from the Indian High Commission at Karachi. Without doing that, he represented to the authorities that he was a citizen of Pakistan and that he wanted to visit India to see his parents as well a sisters husband. It is not his case that he was compelled by force to obtain a passport from Pakistan or that he was a victim of any fraud. Therefore we are unable to appreciate the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the passport was not voluntarily obtained by the appellant. On the admitted facts, no occasion arose for the Government to give him a personal hearing or to give him an opportunity to adduce oral evidence.