- (1.) THE plaintiff-respon dent Smt. Chand Putli entered India on a Pakistani passport. She overstayed the term of her visa at Agra. She was appre hended by the police authorities for depor tation to Pakistan. Thereupon she com menced the suit giving rise to this appeal alleging that she was an Indian citizen and was not liable to be deported. A relief for injunction was sought against the State Government and the Union of India. The suit was contested on behalf of the Union of India on the ground that the plaintiff was a citizen of Pakistan and not a citizen of India and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and deter mine the question of citizenship. The plain tiff then got the hearing of the suit stayed and applied to the Central Government foe determination of her status under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. She was ask ed to make such representations as she wished by filing affidavits and other material evidence which she did. She however, re quested the Central Government to afford her a personal hearing but the Central Gov ernment declined to grant her any personal hearing. The decision of the Central Gov ernment was conveyed to the plaintiff by its order dated 2-5-1967 which is as fol lows:- "Whereas it has come to the notice of the Central Government that Smt. Chand Putli daughter of Smt Kariman, by caste Musalman, resident of Idgah Kutluput Lohron Ki Bagichi, Agra has claimed Indian citizenship notwithstanding her having ob tained a Pakistan passport and a short term visa for entry into India from Pakistan, and whereas a question has arisen as to whether the said Smt. Chand Putli has acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. Now therefore the Central Government acting under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, and giving due regard to the principles of evidence contained in Schedule III to the aforesaid rules and after considering the cause shown by the said Smt. Chand Putli against the proposed action under the said section and rule hereby determines that the said Smt Chand Putli has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after 26th January, 1950, and before 28-6-1954."
(2.) THE plaintiff then got her plaint amended and questioned the validity of the said order of the Central Government on the plea that she not having been afforded reasonable opportunity to meet the case against her, having been denied a personal hearing there has not been any determina tion of her status as required by the law and she could not be deprived of her funda mental rights as a citizen to remain in India. This was then the only material plea re maining in the suit The learned Munsif held that in denying the plaintiff a personal hearing the Central Government violated the principles of natural justice and its order determining the status of plaintiff as being a citizen of Pakistan would be invalid and ineffective for the reason of lack of reasonable oppor tunity to the plaintiff to convince the Cen tral Government that she had not volun tarily obtained the passport as a citizen of Pakistan. The suit was decreed in terms of the reliefs claimed. On appeal by the de fendants the decree of the learned Munsif was affirmed by the learned Civil Judge. The defendants have now come up in second appeal.
(3.) TWO contentions were raised by the learned Standing Counsel in support of the appeal. The first contention was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to enter tain the suit for affording a relief of injunc tion to the plaintiff by going behind the determination of the Central Government in regard to the status of the plaintiff. The second contention was that a personal hear ing not being a necessary ingredient of af fording a reasonable opportunity no in firmity attaches to the determination of the Central Government merely because the plaintiff was refused a personal hearing when her case on the basis of affidavits and other documents was fully considered by the Central Government;