Bachawat, J. - (1.) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katwa, summarily rejected the appellant's application for registration of his name as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act 1955. Mr. Ali contends that the officer acted legally and in excess of his jurisdiction in dismissing the application summarily without making an enquiry. In support of this contention Mr. Ali relies upon the decision in the case of Sk. Hakimuddin v. Dy. Secy. Govt. of West Bengal, 66 Cal WN 126 : (AIR 1961 Cal 299).
(2.) Now Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act 1955 read with Rule 7 of the Citizenship Rules 1956 empowers the Collector to register as a citizen of India, on application made in this behalf, any person who is ordinarily resident in India and who has been so resident for six months immediately before making the application. Section 14(1) provides that the Collector may in his discretion grant or refuse the application and shall not be required to assign any reasons for such grant or refusal. Section 14(2) provides that subject to the provisions of Section 15, the decision of the Collector shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. Under Section 15 any person aggrieved by his order may apply to the Central Government for a revision of the order, and on such application the Central Government may pass such order as it deems fit after considering the application and any report thereon which the Collector may submit, and its decision in this behalf is final. Section 18 empowers the Central Government to make rules. Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules 1956 opens with the note "Collector to make inquiries before registration." The rule provides that the Collector shall before registering a person under Section 5(1)(a) satisfy himself that the person is of Indian Origin and has been actually resident in India for six months immediately proceeding the date of the application, has close connections in India, has an intention to make India his permanent home, as signed the prescribed oath of allegiance, is of good character and is otherwise a fit person to be registered as a citizen of India. Now in 66 Cal WN 126 : (AIR 1961 Cal 299) Sinha, J. held that the summary dismissal of the application under Section 5(1)(a) without making any enquiry was in contravention of Rule 9 and he issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order and directed the Collector to proceed to satisfy himself upon proper enquiry. He said, "So far as the application itself is concerned, the intention is apparent that the petitioner wishes to be an Indian citizen, but as to whether he intends to make India his permanent home, cannot be decided without an enquiry. In his application the applicant has said on oath that he intends to do so. The Collector must therefore, either accept it or reject it and this he cannot do summarily but must make some enquiry." With respect we AIR unable to agree with this decision. Rule 9 requires the Collector to satisfy himself on the several points mentioned in the rule "before registering a person under Section 5(1)(a)." Before registering the applicant as a citizen, the Collector must satisfy himself on those points and for that purpose he may make inquiries. He may inform himself in such manner as he thinks fit. He may make confidential enquiries. He may act on his own personal knowledge. If on a perusal of the application he decides to reject it, he need not make further enquiries. He is required to follow the procedure prescribed by the Act and the rules and to do no more. Neither the Act nor the rules require him to make an enquiry in case he rejects the application under Section 5(1)(a). Even if he is satisfied that all the conditions mentioned in Rule 9 have been fulfilled, he ahs ample power to refuse the certificate of citizenship under Section 5. He is no way bound to register the applicant as a citizen even though all the conditions mentioned in Rule 9 are fulfilled. The action of the Collector under Section 5 is an executive and a political act. The Collector is not bound to assign any reasons for the grant or refusal of the application. Subject to any orders which may be passed by the Central Government on a revision application under Section 5(1)(a), the decision of the Collector is final and is not liable to be questioned in any Court. The executive order of the Collector is not amenable to a writ of certiorari. The foreigner has no fundamental right to become a citizen of this country. The Court has no power to interfere with the impugned order of the Collector summarily rejecting the application under Section 5(1)(a).
(3.) The appellant as also his parents were born in Burdwan. He was in the police service. He opted for Pakistan in 1947, and remained there for six years. He came back to India under a Pakistani passport. He also applied for grant of Indian Citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. That application was dismissed in due course. All these facts show prima facie that the appellant is not citizen of India and, is therefore, a foreigner within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, served upon the appellant a notice stating that the appellant is a foreigner and directing that he should not remain in India after the expiry of three days from the date of service of the order. Presumably this order was passed under Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act. By Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the onus of showing that he is not a foreigner is on the appellant. In the face of all the facts mentioned above, the appellant still claims that he is an Indian Citizen and not a foreigner. Plainly he raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided conveniently in the Writ Jurisdiction see Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammad, AIR 1961 SC 1526. If the appellant claims even now that he is not a foreigner, his remedy is to file a suit.;