046-NLR-NLR-V-57-A.-K.-SUBRAMANIAM-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PA.pdf
r.1955Present : Gratiaen, J., and Swan, J.
.-.A. K. SU13R AM AN I AM, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FORREGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANIRESIDENTS, Respondent
S. C. 1,0-10—Indian and Pakistani Pcsidenls (Citizenship).
Ko. X 3,739'
Xndian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, A'o. 3 of 1010—Appeal from orderof Commissioner—'l ime limit.
Tho time limit for appeal under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizen-ship) Act is three months from the date on which tho order appealed from iscommunicated to the applicant.
,/^lPPEAT.i under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship)_Act.
Waller Jayauardene, for the applicant-appellant.
Tcnnekoon, Crown Cotinsel, for the respondent.
'November 25, 1955. Gratiaux, J.—
The applicant was refused his application for registration as a citizen
of Ceylon on the ground that he admittedly owned certain property inllndia by inheritance. The Deputy Commissioner took the view that
this was a fatal disqualification because in his opinion " the ownership- of propert}' in India is repugnant to the Ordinance and a person cannot
get citizenship rights so long as he ou-ns property in India. " There is •no such disqualification and -learned Crown Counsel states'that he is•unable to support the order refusing the application or the ground ofthat refusal. Learned Crown Counsel has hovrever brought' to ournotice that although the inquiry was held on ISth February, 1955, thepetition of appeal is dated 6th June, 1955. The time limit allowed bythe Ordinance is three months from the date of the order and that clearlymeans the date on which the order was communicated to the applicant."Under the Ordinance, the Deputy Commissioner is required either to makehis order at the close of the inquiry or to inform the applicant of the date■on which the order will be made. There is no evidence on the recordns to which of these steps was taken in the present case and I observe-that the typed order in the record which was signed by the Deputy•Commissioner is in fact undated. There is also evidence on the recordthat on 16th April, 1955, the applicant wrote to the Deputy Commissioner■complaining that he had not been informed of the result of the inquirywhich.had been held by the Deputy Commissioner on ISth February,
Even then a copy of the order was not sent to the applicant untilhe sent the Department a sum of 72 cents to defray the cost of typing.Accordingly, we are quite unable to decide when the order was in factcommunicated to the applicant for the first time and for this very reasonit is impossible for us to say that the appeal was made out of time. .
We allow the appeal and direct the Deputy Commissioner to take•action on the footing that a prim a facie case for registration has beenmade out. The applicant is entitled to his costs which we fix at Its. 105.
Appeal allozccd:
33 wan, J.—I agree.