Summarize the following court judgment. No. 60 of 1958. Writ Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. H. J. Umrigar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi	 for the appellant. section K. Kapoor and P. Gupta	 for the respondents. April 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR	 J. The petitioners were born in India before the commencement of the Constitution. Sometime in 1947	 they went away to the territory since included in Pakistan. They used to come to India from time to time and the last time that they came	 was in April	 1956. Each time they came to India	 they did so on passports issued by the Government of Pakistan. In December.	 1956	 they applied to the Collector of Nagaur in Rajasthan where they resided	 for registration as citizens of India. On December 19	 1956	 the Collector of Nagaur issued certificates of registration to them under section 5(l)(a) of the . Subsequently on February 5	 1957	 two of the petitioners made applications for grant of citizenship certificates to their minor children under section 5(l)(d) of that Act. On February 6	 1957	 an officer of the Collectorate of Nagaur took back the registration certificates issued to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on the 774 representation that they were required for recording in them the names of the minor children for whose registration as citizens of India applications had been made. On February 8	 1957	 notices were issued by the Collector of Nagaur canceling the registration certificates issued to the petitioners and directing them to return to Pakistan within three days. The petitioners have presented this petition for a writ quashing the order of the Collector of Nagaur canceling their registration as citizens of	 and requiring them to leave	 India. The respondents to this petition originally were the State of Rajasthan and the Collector of Nagaur. Subsequently	 under our order notice of the petition was given to the Union of India and the Union has appeared. The only question is whether the cancellation of the registration of the petitioners as citizens of India	 was valid. It was said on behalf of the respondents that the Collector had power to cancel the registration under section 10(2)(a) of the Act. That provision states	 amongst other things	 that the Central Government may by order deprive certain citizens of India of their citizenship "if it is satisfied that the registration was obtained by means of fraud	 false representation or concealment of any material fact". The petitioners" answer to this contention was that the cancellation of their registration was not by the Central Government but by the Collector. They also contended that their registration as citizens could not be cancelled under sub sec. (2) of section 10. They pointed out that subsection (2) started with the words "Subject to the provisions of this section" and contended that the powers under that subsection could	 therefore	 be exercised subject to the other provisions of section 10. They then referred to sub sec. (l) of section 1.0 which so far as relevant provided	 "A citizen of India who is such by registration otherwise than under cl. (a) of sub section (1) of section 5 of this Act shall cease to be a citizen of India if he is deprived of that citizenship by an order of the Central Government under this section". They contended that they became citizens of India by registration under section 5(l)(a) of the Act and 775 they could not be deprived of their citizenship under sub section (2) of section 10. On the facts of this case it is unnecessary to express any opinion on these contentions. In any event	 under cl. (a) of sub section (2) of section 10 a citizen can be deprived of his citizenship only if it is proved that the registration was obtained by means of fraud	 false representation or concealment of any material fact. This power cannot	 therefore	 be exercised unless such fraud	 false representation or suppression of a material fact exists. It was contended by the respondents that the petitioners had obtained registration as citizens of India by suppressing the fact that they had earlier applied to the Government of India for long term visas for permanent settlement in India which had been refused by that Government. The making of the previous applications and their rejection are no doubt material facts. The contention however that these facts were concealed is clearly unfounded. It has been proved to our satisfaction by the production of the original applications for registration made. by the petitioners that they had mentioned the fact that their applications for permission to settle permanently in India had been rejected by the Government. As we understood learned counsel for the respondents	 he also accepted this position. The only other point that was taken by the respondents was that the Collector having the power to grant the registration certificate under the had by virtue of section 21 of the 	 and apart from section 10(2) of the 	 the power to cancel it. We are entirely unable to agree that a. 21 conferred on the Collector any such power. The orders mentioned in that section are not orders of the kind contemplated in section 5 of the . It seems to us therefore that the orders canceling the registration of the petitioners as citizens were wholly illegal and unsupportable and they are accordingly set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to the costs of this application. Petition allowed.

The petitioners were granted certificates of registration as Indian Citizens under section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act	 955	 by the Collector of Nagaur. Later the Collector passed orders canceling the certificates. The power to cancel was based on 773 section 10 (2)(a) Of the 	 and section 21 Of the . Held	 that section 10(2(a) of the 	 had no application for	 apart from any other considerations	 that section could apply only where the registration was obtained by means of fraud	 false representation or concealment of any material fact and no such thing had been proved. The Collector had no power under section 21 of the 	 either to cancel the order of registration as citizens which had been made by him since the orders mentioned in that section are not of the kind contemplated by section 5 Of the . The orders canceling the registration are set aside.