SANSON I, J.—Karuppan Muniyandy v. Commissioner for Registration of 403
Indian and Pakistani Residents
Present: Sansoni, J.
KARUPPAN MUNIYANDY, Appellant, and COMMISSIONERFOR REGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANIRESIDENTS, Respondent.
Citizenship Case No. 79—Application No. K. 1,578.
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949—Application forcitizenship thereunder—Applicant's awareness of the consequences of his applica-tion—Circumstances when proof of that fact is necessary.
Au application for citizenship under the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Aot must not be rejected by the Commissioner on the ground thatthe applicant does not realise the full implications of being registered as a citizenunless tbe applicant has been given previous notice that he must prove thi-sparticular matter.
-/APPEAL under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act.
S. P. Amerasingham, for the applicant-appellant.
E. B. de Fonseka, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 31,1958. Sansoni, J.—
The only matters which the applicant was called upon to prove at theinquiry were that his wife and children were resident in Ceylon during■certain specified periods, and that he had permanently settled in Ceylon.After inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner held that the evidence ledsatisfied him on the issues regarding residence. He held, however, thatthe applicant had failed to prove that he had permanently settled inCeylon and his only reason for so holding was that the applicant statedthat he was not aware of the consequences of being registered as a citizenof Ceylon at the time he applied, or even at the time of the inquiry.But he omits to give effect to the applicant’s statement that he wantsto be a citizen of Ceylon and that his reason was that he has no interestsin India.
The question of permanent settlement is quite different and distinctfrom the question whether the applicant realises the full implicationsof being registered as a citizen. In his application form the applicanthas stated that he understands that in the event of being registered as acitizen he will be deemed to have renounced the rights to the civil andpolitical status which he had, and that he will be subject to the laws ofCeylon. I do not understand why he should have been questioned onthese matters by the Deputy Commissioner who had not given theapplicant notice that these were matters he had to prove. I have had
Hendrick Singho v. Wanigatillelca
other eases before me where this particular Deputy Commissioner has putthe same questions to applicants and rejected their applications on thesame grounds. Applicants who are not alive to the situation and whohave no reason to attach particular significance to their answers on thesedifficult matters may be inclined to give answers thoughtlessly. Theproper course for the Deputy Commissioner to have adopted, if he was notsatisfied with the evidence on this point, would have been to adjourn theinquiry and give fresh notice to the applicant that he had to prove thisparticular matter.
In the absence of these conditions the Deputy Commissioner’s questionswere irrelevant and could perhaps be regarded as having been put totrip up the applicant who had come prepared to establish certain definedissues.
I set aside the order appealed from and send the case back for furtheraction on the footing that a prima facie has been established. Theapplicant is entitled to his costs fixed at Rs. 105.
Order set aside.
KARUPPAN MINIYANDY, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND