K. KRISHNA M.A. RALHANY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 1200 · Decided: 16-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. KRISHNA M.A. RAlHANY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 16, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A. JJ.] 
Citi:enship Act, 1955-s.6-Dispute over application of Appellant for 
grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization-Appellant contended that no 
C order was passed on his application for citizenshirRespondents however 
stated that the application had been disposed of by an order in form of a 
communication of the Central Government, copy of which had been given to 
Appellant-Held: It is open to the Appellant to avail such remedy as is 
available in law in view of the said order. 
D 
Appellant filed application seeking grant of Indian citizenship by 
naturaliz.ation. Dispute arose with regard to the same. 
In appeal to this Court, Appellant contended that no order was P..assed 
on his application for citizenship. Respondents however stated that the 
communication dated 29.8.2006 of the Under Secretary, Government oflndia, 
E a copy of which was given to the Appellant, is the order disposing of 
Appellant's prayer for grant of Indian citizenship by naturaliz.ation under 
s.6(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 
F 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It is not necessary to go into the various points urged by the 
parties in view of the fact that it is accepted by the Respondents that the 
communication dated 29.8.2006 is the order disposing of appellant's 
application for grant of citizenship. It is open to the appellant to avail such 
remedy as is available in law in view of the said order. 
(Paras 10 and 11) 
CRJMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 
2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 13. l 0.2006 of the High Court 
H 
1200 
'• 
K. KRISHNA M.A. RAIHANY v. U.0.1. [PASA Y AT, J.] 
1201 
of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1262of2006. 
A.V. Savant, Sr. Adv. Pramit Saxena, Amit Yadav and S.V. Deshpande for 
the Appellant. 
A 
Mohan Parasaran, A.S.G., Binu Tamta, Sushma Suri and Ravindra 
Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench 
of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 
3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows: 
c 
4. Appellant was born on 28.8.1973 at Mumbai. His school leaving D 
certificate shows that the appellant was admitted to Karnataka High School 
at Chembur, Mumbai and left the school on 29.8.1988. On 4.12.1993 the 
Reserve Bank of India (for short 'RBI') granted permission to the appellant 
under Section 29(l)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for · 
short 'FERA') for acquisition of shares in business in India. He also entered E 
into catering contract at a railway station in Maharashtra. On 15.7.2003 the 
appellant applied for citizenship under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 
(for short 'Act'). Initially the State Government wrote a letter to the Central 
Government regarding grant of citizenship by naturalistion under Section 6(1) 
of the Act. A letter was also written by the Under Secretary, Government of 
India, stipulating certain conditions for accepting the prayer of the appellant. F 
Thereafter, the appellant got in touch with the Consulate General of Iran on 
several occasions. An order of deportation was passed against the appellant 
on 7.10.2005. A writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court 
challenging the order. The same was dismissed on 17 .2.2006. However, this 
Court allowed the Writ Petition (criminal) no.17 of 2006 with certain directions. G 
Appellant's case is that though his presence was required by the police 
officials, notices were issued without specifying any reason. Notice was 
issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai requiring appellant's 
presence on 3.4.2006. A detailed reply was filed on 4.4.2006. Warning was 
issued on 7.4.2006 to remain present on 10.4.2006. Reply was submitted on H 
that date. On 26.5.2006 notice was issued by the Inspector of Police to the 
1202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A appellant requiring his presence in the office. On 26.5.2006 notice dated 
.~ 
10.4.2006 was received by the appellant directing him to leave the country. 
B 
Reply was submitted by the appellant on 10.6.2006. A Writ Petition was filed 
(W.P. 1262/06) with prayers for (a) grant of Indian citizenship by naturalization; 
(b) not to interfere wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.