# GHAUitUL HASAN AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF RAJ ASTHAN

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 772
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 60 of 1958
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, s. K. DAS, A. K. Sarkar, K. C. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ghauitul-hasan-and-others-v-the-state-of-raj-asthan-2085
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Citizenship-Order of registration by Collector-Cancellation
of such order by him-Validity of cancellation-Citizenship Act,
z955 (57 of 1955), ss. 5(r)(a), ro(2)(a).
The petitioners were granted certificates of registration as
Indian Citizens under s. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by
the Collector of Nagaur.
Later the Collector passed orders
cancelling the certificates. The power to cancel was based on
I
~
..
'
•
L
•
...
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
773
s. ro (2)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, ands. 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897.
Held, that s. ro(z'(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, had no
application for, apart from any other considerations, that section Muld apply only where the registration was obtained by
means of fraud, false representation or concealment· of any
material fact and no such thing had been prov,ed.
The Collector had no power under s. 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897, either to cancel the order of registration as
citizens which had been made by him since the orders mention-
. ed in that section are not of the kind contemplated by s. 5 of
the Citizenship Act.
The orders cancelling the registration are set aside.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Petition No. 60 of
1958.
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
H.J. Umrigar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
,
S. K. Kapoor and D. Gupta, for the respondents.
1961.
April 5. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SARKAR, J.-The petitioners were born in India
before the commencement of the Constitution. Sometime in 1947, they went away to the territory since
included in Pakistan. They used to come to India
from time to time and the last time that they came,
was in April, 1956. Each time they came to India,
they did so on passports issued by the Government of
Pakistan.
In December, 1956, they applied to the Collector of
Nagaur in Rajasthan where they resided, for registration as citizens of India. On December 19, 1956, the
Collector of Nagaur issued certificates of registration
to them under s. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act,, 1955.
Subsequently on February 5, 1957, two of the petitioners made applications for grant of citizenship
certificates to their minor children under s. 5(l)(d) of
that Act. On February 6, 1957, an ()fficer of the
Collectorate of Nagaur took back the registration
certificates issued to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on the
I96I
Ghaurul /lasan
v.
The State of
Rajasthan
Sarkar ].
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r96I
representation that they were required for recording in
Gh
- 1-H
them the names of the minor children for whose
auruv.
asan registration as citizens of India applications had been
The State of made. On February 8, 1957, notices were issued by
Rajasthan
the Collector of Nagaur cancelling the registration
certificates issued to the petitioners and directing them
Sarkar J.
to return to Pakistan within three days.
The petitioners have presented this petition for a
writ quashing the order of the Collector of Nagaur
cancelling their registration as citizens of, and requiring them to leave, India. The respondents to this
petition originally were the State of Rajasthan and
the Collector of Nagaur. Subsequently, under our
order notice of the petition was given to the Union of
India and the Union has appeared.
The only question is whether the cancellation of the
registration of the petitioners as citizens of India, was
valid. It was said on behalf of the respondents that
the Collector had power to cancel the registration
under s. 10(2)(a) of the Act. That provision states,
amongst other things, that the Central Government
may by order deprive certain citizens of India of their
citizenship "if it is satisfied that the registration ......
was obtained by means of fraud, false representation
or concealment of any material fact". The petitioners'
answer to this contention was that the cancellation of
their registration was not by the Central Government
but by the Collector. T

## Text

772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
I96I
gold plated but a gold plated article can only be
a gold plated article.
Therefore, it seems to me
Venk~;es:~rnn, that item 45(3) was int~nded to apply to fountain·
Collector of
pens simpliciter, that 1s, without gold plating or
Customs,
Bombay other embellishments which might properly bring
v.
them under another item in the schedule. This, in
Ramchand Sobhraj my view, would best harmonise the different items
Wadhwani
in the Tariff schedule and carry out the intention
50,,,., J.
of the legislature.
This can be illustrated by an
example. ·Suppose a fountain-p-en was studded with
diamonds. Could it then be said that the legislature
•
April 5.
intended to impose on them a duty of 30 per cent. ad
valorem under item 45(3) and the diamonds were not
intended to be assessed under item 61(10) which deals
with jewels and provides for a higher duty. I do not
think that a possible view to take. ·
I think, therefore, that the assessment in the present case under item 61(8) was proper. I would hence
allow the appeal.
BY COURT: In accordance with the opinion of the
majority, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
GHAUitUL HASAN AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF RAJ ASTHAN
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR,
K. C. DAS GUPTA and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Citizenship-Order of registration by Collector-Cancellation
of such order by him-Validity of cancellation-Citizenship Act,
z955 (57 of 1955), ss. 5(r)(a), ro(2)(a).
The petitioners were granted certificates of registration as
Indian Citizens under s. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by
the Collector of Nagaur.
Later the Collector passed orders
cancelling the certificates. The power to cancel was based on
I
~
..
'
•
L
•
...
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
773
s. ro (2)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, ands. 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897.
Held, that s. ro(z'(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, had no
application for, apart from any other considerations, that section Muld apply only where the registration was obtained by
means of fraud, false representation or concealment· of any
material fact and no such thing had been prov,ed.
The Collector had no power under s. 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897, either to cancel the order of registration as
citizens which had been made by him since the orders mention-
. ed in that section are not of the kind contemplated by s. 5 of
the Citizenship Act.
The orders cancelling the registration are set aside.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Petition No. 60 of
1958.
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
H.J. Umrigar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
,
S. K. Kapoor and D. Gupta, for the respondents.
1961.
April 5. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SARKAR, J.-The petitioners were born in India
before the commencement of the Constitution. Sometime in 1947, they went away to the territory since
included in Pakistan. They used to come to India
from time to time and the last time that they came,
was in April, 1956. Each time they came to India,
they did so on passports issued by the Government of
Pakistan.
In December, 1956, they applied to the Collector of
Nagaur in Rajasthan where they resided, for registration as citizens of India. On December 19, 1956, the
Collector of Nagaur issued certificates of registration
to them under s. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act,, 1955.
Subsequently on February 5, 1957, two of the petitioners made applications for grant of citizenship
certificates to their minor children under s. 5(l)(d) of
that Act. On February 6, 1957, an ()fficer of the
Collectorate of Nagaur took back the registration
certificates issued to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 on the
I96I
Ghaurul /lasan
v.
The State of
Rajasthan
Sarkar ].
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r96I
representation that they were required for recording in
Gh
- 1-H
them the names of the minor children for whose
auruv.
asan registration as citizens of India applications had been
The State of made. On February 8, 1957, notices were issued by
Rajasthan
the Collector of Nagaur cancelling the registration
certificates issued to the petitioners and directing them
Sarkar J.
to return to Pakistan within three days.
The petitioners have presented this petition for a
writ quashing the order of the Collector of Nagaur
cancelling their registration as citizens of, and requiring them to leave, India. The respondents to this
petition originally were the State of Rajasthan and
the Collector of Nagaur. Subsequently, under our
order notice of the petition was given to the Union of
India and the Union has appeared.
The only question is whether the cancellation of the
registration of the petitioners as citizens of India, was
valid. It was said on behalf of the respondents that
the Collector had power to cancel the registration
under s. 10(2)(a) of the Act. That provision states,
amongst other things, that the Central Government
may by order deprive certain citizens of India of their
citizenship "if it is satisfied that the registration ......
was obtained by means of fraud, false representation
or concealment of any material fact". The petitioners'
answer to this contention was that the cancellation of
their registration was not by the Central Government
but by the Collector. They also contended that their
registration as citizens could not be cancelled under
sub-sec. (2) of s. 10. They pointed out that subsection (2) started with the words "Subject to the provisions of this section" and contended that the powers
under that sub-section could, therefore, be exercised
subject to the other provisions of s. 10.
They then
referred to sub-sec. (1) of s. 10 which so far as relevant
provided, "A citizen of India who is such ......... by
registration otherwise than under ......... cl. {a) of
sub-section ( l) of s. 5 of this Act shall cease to be a
citizen of India if he is deprived of that citizenship by
an order of the Central Government under this section". They contended that they became citizens of
India by registration under s. 5{l)(a) of the Act and
(
T
,
'
•
•
I
I · •
..
...
I
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
775
they could not be deprived of their citizenship under
z96z
sub-section (2) of s. 10.
Gh
1 H
0
h f
f h.
"t .
auru
asan
n t e acts o t ls case l ls unnecessary to express
v.
any opinion on these contentions. In any event, under
The state of
cl. (a) of sub-section (2) of s.10 a citizen can be deprivRajasthan
ed of his citizenship only if it is proved that the registration was obtained by means of fraud, false repreSarkar J.
sentation or concealment of any material fact. This
power cannot, therefore, be exercised unless such
fraud, false representation or suppression of a material
fact exists. It was contended by the respondents that
the petitioners had obtained registration as citizens of
India by suppressing the fact that they had earlier
applied to the Government of India for long term
visas for permanent settlement in India which had
been refused by that Government. The making of the
previous applications and their rejection are no doubt
material facts. The contention however that these
facts were concealed is clearly unfounded. It has been
proved to our satisfaction by the production of the
original applications for registration made by the
petitioners that they had mentioned the fact that their
applications for permission to settle permanently in
India had been rejected by the Government. As we
understood learned counsel for the respondents, he
also accepted this position.
The only other point that was taken by the respondents was that the Collector having the power to
grant the registration certificate under the Citizenship
Act hfl.d by virtue of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act,
and apart from s. 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, the
power to cancel it. We are entirely unable to agree
that s. 21 conferred on the Collector any such power.
The orders mentioned in that section are not orders of
the kind contemplated in s. 5 "of the Citizenship Act.
It seems to us therefore that the orders cancelling
the registration of the petitioners as citizens were
wholly illegal and unsupportable and they are accordingly set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to the
costs of this application.
Petition allowed .