K. KRISHNA M.A. RALHANYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                                                                      '•
A                           K. KRISHNA M.A. RAlHANY
                                       v.
                            UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                    MAY 16, 2007

B        [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA. JJ.]


          Citi:enship Act, 1955-s.6-Dispute over application of Appellant for
    grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization-Appellant contended that no
C   order was passed on his application for citizenshirRespondents however
    stated that the application had been disposed of by an order in form of a
    communication of the Central Government, copy of which had been given to
    Appellant-Held: It is open to the Appellant to avail such remedy as is
    available in law in view of the said order.

D         Appellant filed application seeking grant of Indian citizenship by
    naturaliz.ation. Dispute arose with regard to the same.

            In appeal to this Court, Appellant contended that no order was P..assed
    on his application for citizenship. Respondents however stated that the
    communication dated 29.8.2006 of the Under Secretary, Government oflndia,
E   a copy of which was given to the Appellant, is the order disposing of
    Appellant's prayer for grant of Indian citizenship by naturaliz.ation under
    s.6(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

            Disposing of the appeal, the Court

F         HELD: It is not necessary to go into the various points urged by the
    parties in view of the fact that it is accepted by the Respondents that the
    communication dated 29.8.2006 is the order disposing of appellant's
    application for grant of citizenship. It is open to the appellant to avail such
    remedy as is available in law in view of the said order.
G                                                               (Paras 10 and 11)

            CRJMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 744 of
    2007.

            From the Final Judgment and Order dated 13. l 0.2006 of the High Court
H                                         1200
             K. KRISHNA M.A. RAIHANY v. U.0.1. [PASA YAT, J.]            1201

of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1262of2006.                    A
     A.V. Savant, Sr. Adv. Pramit Saxena, Amit Yadav and S.V. Deshpande for
the Appellant.

     Mohan Parasaran, A.S.G., Binu Tamta, Sushma Suri and Ravindra
Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondents.                                            B

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench
                                                                                 c
of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

      3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

        4. Appellant was born on 28.8.1973 at Mumbai. His school leaving D
 certificate shows that the appellant was admitted to Karnataka High School
 at Chembur, Mumbai and left the school on 29.8.1988. On 4.12.1993 the
 Reserve Bank of India (for short 'RBI') granted permission to the appellant
 under Section 29(l)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for ·
 short 'FERA') for acquisition of shares in business in India. He also entered E
 into catering contract at a railway station in Maharashtra. On 15.7.2003 the
 appellant applied for citizenship under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955
 (for short 'Act'). Initially the State Government wrote a letter to the Central
 Government regarding grant of citizenship by naturalistion under Section 6(1)
of the Act. A letter was also written by the Under Secretary, Government of
India, stipulating certain conditions for accepting the prayer of the appellant. F
Thereafter, the appellant got in touch with the Consulate General of Iran on
several occasions. An order of deportation was passed against the appellant
on 7.10.2005. A writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court
challenging the order. The same was dismissed on 17 .2.2006. However, this
Court allowed the Writ Petition (criminal) no.17 of 2006 with certain directions. G
Appellant's case is that though his presence was required by the police
officials, notices were issued without specifying any reason. Notice was
issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai requiring appellant's
presence on 3.4.2006. A detailed reply was filed on 4.4.2006. Warning was
issued on 7.4.2006 to remain present on 10.4.2006. Reply was submitted on H
that date. On 26.5 .2006 notice was issued by the Inspector of Police to the
    1202                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A appellant requiring his presence in the office. On 26.5.2006 notice dated              .~
    10.4.2006 was received by the appellant directing him to leave the country.
    Reply was submitted by the appellant on 10.6.2006. A Writ Petition was filed
    (W.P. 1262/06) with prayers for (a) grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization;
    (b) not to interfere with the appellant's right of residence in India; (c) not to
    deport the appellant without following the orders of this Court.
B
           5. By letter dated 29.8.2006, the Under Secretary, Government of India,
    withdrew the letter dated 15 .12.2003 giving reference to the State Government's
    letter dated 6.7.2006. On 13.10.2006 the High Court dismissed the writ petition
    by the impugned order. On 17. I0.2006 notice was issued to the appellant to
C   leave the country. The SLP was thereafter filed and the notice was issued
    on 6.12.2006 granting stay of deportation.

        6. According to the appellant there is no order passed on his application
  for citizenship. No reason has been indicated in the communication dated
  29.8.2006 as to what was the basis for holding that citizenship was not to be
D granted to him in public interest. Detailed counter-affidavits have been filed
  by the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra.

           7. However, there is no need to refer to them in detail.

           8. Learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned counsel appearing
E for the State of Maharashtra stated that the communication dated 29.8.2006
    copy of which was given to the appellant is the order disposing of the
    appellant's prayer for grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization under
    Section 6(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that even
    in the counter affidavits filed there was no specific stand taken that the
F   communication in question was the order in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act.
    In any event, according to him no reasons have been indicated.

          9. By way of reply the learned ASG pointed out that Section 14 of the
    Act makes the position clear that no reasons are required to be assigned for
    grant or refusal the application under Section 5 or 6 of the Act.
G
          10. It is not necessary to go into the various points urged in view of
    the fact that it is accepted by the learned ASG for the Union of India and the
    learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra that the communication dated
    29.8.2006 i~ the order disposing of appellant's application for grant of
H
               K. KRISHNA M.A. RAIHANYv. U.0 .1. [PASA YAT, J.J         1203
citizenship.                                                                    A
      11. It is open to the appellant to avail such remedy as is available in
law in view of the said order. We make it clear that we have not expressed
any opinion on the merits ot the case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

B.B.B.                                                 Appeal disposed of.      B