9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of cancellation of registration as citizens of India by the Collector of Nagaur. 2. Interpretation of provisions under the Citizenship Act, 1955 regarding cancellation of citizenship. 3. Examination of whether fraud, false representation, or concealment of material facts existed in obtaining citizenship. 4. Authority of the Collector to cancel registration certificates under the General Clauses Act. The judgment addresses the petitioners' challenge against the Collector of Nagaur's order canceling their registration as citizens of India and directing them to leave the country. The primary issue was the validity of this cancellation. The respondents argued that the Collector had the power to cancel registration under section 10(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act, allowing deprivation of citizenship if obtained through fraud, false representation, or concealment of material facts. The petitioners contended that the cancellation was not by the Central Government and that their registration could not be canceled under section 10(2). They argued that their citizenship, acquired under section 5(1)(a), could not be revoked under section 10(2). The Court noted that cancellation under section 10(2) required proof of fraud or false representation. The respondents alleged that the petitioners concealed their previous applications for settlement visas, which had been rejected. However, the Court found that the petitioners had disclosed this information in their registration applications, disproving the allegation of concealment. Furthermore, the respondents argued that the Collector had the authority to cancel the registration certificates under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The Court disagreed, stating that section 21 did not confer such power on the Collector, as the orders mentioned in that section did not align with the requirements of the Citizenship Act. Consequently, the Court deemed the cancellation orders as illegal and unsupported, setting them aside. The petitioners were granted costs for the application, and the petition was allowed. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the necessity of proving fraud or false representation before depriving individuals of citizenship rights.
|
