006-NLR-NLR-V-62-CARUPPIAH-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PAKISTANI.pdf
STHNETAMBY, J.Carupjriah v. Commissioner for Registration, of
Indian and Pakistani Residents
17
1960Present : Sinnetamby, J.
CARUPPIAH, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER EOR REGISTRATIONOP INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS. Respondent
S. C. 121—1. P. R. C. No. 1532
Indian and Pakistani Residents {Citizenship) Act, Ho. 3 of 1949—-Applicatioti mndeiherexiruler-^lAffidavit not properly signed—Effect.
Once an application for registration under the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act has been entertained and issues have been framed undersection 9 (1), it is not open to the Commissioner to reject the application there-after on the ground that it is not in proper form inasmuch as the affidavit wasnot properly signed.
_/pPEAL under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act.S. P. Amarasingham, for Appellant.
M. KanctgasuTideram, Crown Counsel, for the Respondent.
March 3, 1960. Sinnetamby, J.—•
In this case the application for registration was accepted by the DeputyCommissioner and a notice was issued on him under Section 9 (1) followedby a notice under Section 9 (3) calling upon the applicant to satisfy theDeputy Commissioner in regard to four matters. The Deputy Commis-sioner was in point of fact quite satisfied in regard to all those matters onthe evidence led at the inquiry but subsequently raised the question ofwhether the application was made in due form inasmuch as the affidavitwas not properly signed. This Court has held in S. C. 58/'57—I.N.P.R.Application No. L. 6320 that it is not open to the Deputy Commissionerto accept the application after it was duly signed before a Justice of thePeace and later reject it on the ground that the application was notmade in due form. If the application was not in due form he shouldhave intimated it to the applicant in sufficient time to enable the latterto rectify the mistake. The Deputy Commissioner would be doing theapplicant a grave injustice if he leads an applicant into the belief thathis application is in order by entertaining it and, thereafter, after theprescribed date, before which applications are required to be sent, rejectingit on the ground that it is not in proper form. In the judgment I referredto Fernando J. held that if the Deputy Commissioner -wished to raisean issue in regard to the validity of the affidavit he should have raisedit before he framed the issues under Section 9 (1). In view of Fernando J.’sdecision Crown Counsel is unable to support the finding of the DeputyCommissioner. On the Deputy Commissioner’s own finding all theissues raised in the 9 (3) notice have been proved to the satisfaction
18
SAINS ONI, J.—Meruiis Silva v. Gey Ion Insurance Co., Ltd.
-of the Commissioner. I therefore set aside the order of the DeputyCommissioner and send the case back for necessary steps to be takenon the basis that a prima facie case has been made out by the applicantfor the registration of himself, his wife and children. Appellant isentitled to costs fixed at Us. 105.
Order set aside.