ABDULGAFOOR S/O RAMJAN Vs. STATE OF M P
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of the nature of habeas corpus presented on 10-3-1966, by Abdul Gafoor who had been arrested on 27-2-1966 moving about in Neemuch and having a Pakistanee Passport with the photograph removed, which as well as the visa ceased to be valid in 1956 equivalent Citation: itself The civil authority proceeded on the footing that he is a Pakistanee citizen who having coma to India in 1956 and having reported departure in March 1956, had come again and had remained in concealment for ten years till he was arrested. Accordingly, an order under Paragraph 5 (1) of the Foreigners internment Order 1962 was served on him and he was arrested and detained at neemuch pending removal to the internment camp which for this area is the one at Ajmer.
(2.) AFTER the petition was filed an order was made by this Court staying deportation the civil authority withdrew the internment order, and after releasing the petitioner served another order, under Clause (3) of the Foreigners (Restrictions on pakistanee Nationals) Order 1965 restricting his movement to the limits of neemuch Cantonment, and directing that he should not absent himself from that area for any period exceeding 24 hours without the prior permission in writing from the civil authority which in the instant case is the Superintendent of Police, district Mandsaur The point to note is that while this latter order is made under the Foreigners Order, the restrictions on movement imposed by it are such as could have been made even in respect of a citizen of India under the Defence of india Rules, and In view of the emergency and the abeyance of Article 19, even a citizen may not be able to move the Courts against it. The petitioner however, has insisted on challenging both tht orders, the first one which ceased to operate on 18-3-1966. and the second one which is in force now on the basic contention, that in spite of all that has happened which will in lime be set out in some detail he is a citizen of India and therefore any action on the footing of his being a Pakistanee national is ultra vires of the fundamental rights given by the Constitution.
(3.) THE case has been argued at a very great length: but the questions for decision are simple. (1) Whether at all in view of the concealment and devices practised by the petitioner and his prompters he is entitled to any assistance from this Court under Article 226. (2) Whether on the materials before us we would in fact be justified in believing that he is the son of the late ramzani who he says has an alias name Mammu and was resi-dent in chhaoni Neemuch till his death in 1958-59. (3) Whether assuming that he is the son of somebody in Neemuch, and that he left India in 1954, and came back on a Pakis tanee passport obtained on a declaration of pakistanee citizenship and went again to Pakistan in 1956, whether because of all this he could be deemed still to be an Indian citi-zen. (4)Assuming that he was a minor while he obtained the Pakistanee Passport and came back to India and went again and returned his father guardian's conduct was such as to approve of his migration, and as such he would not be entitled to contend that his movements were involuntary and without the guardian's consent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.