SEKANDAR BEPARI AND ORS. Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND REGISTRATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two matters raise common question of law and fact and can be disposed of by one common judgment.

(2.) IN Civil Rule No. 206, the Petitioners are Sekandar Bepari, Ghutu Sheikh and Jaharuddin, and in Civil Rule No. 207, the Petitioners are Sital Sekh alias Sital Bopari and Majibar Sheikh.

(3.) THE contention raised by the Petitioners is that they have all along been Indian citizens, from before the commencement of the Constitution, and they continued to reside in India and had not lost their Indian citizenship. A foreigner has been defined under Section 2 of the Foreigners Act to mean that a person who is not a citizen of India is a foreigner. As the Petitioners claim to be citizens of India, they contend that the provisions of the Foreigners Act do not apply to them and the notices are thus without jurisdiction. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In the counter -affidavit it is alleged that the Petitioners are not Indian citizens. They came to India and in the riots of 1950 went to Pakistan with a view to settle there. The father of the Petitioners in Civil Rule No. 206 died in Pakistan. Thereafter the Petitioners surreptitiously came to India but they not Indian citizens. This Court remitted an issue to the District Judge to find out whether the Petitioners were Indian citizens at the commencement of the Constitution and on the date when the notices were issue. The District Judge after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after considering the evidence thus adduced has come to the conclusion that the Petitioners were in India prior to 1950 and they did live in their respective places in 1950, but there is no evidence to show that they went to Pakistan. The District Judge has held that their names found place in the electoral rolls, and, in any case, the Petitioners are Indian citizens and thus the notices are invalid.