104-NLR-NLR-V-58-M.-K.-MARIANTHONY-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PA.pdf
iS57Present: Sinnetamby, J.
51. IC MARIAXTKONY, Appellant, and COMMISSI ONER FORREGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS,
Respondent
Citizenship Case No. JS—Application Q. 3590
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, 2'o. 3 of J919—Application forregistration thereunder—Scojyc of inquiry—Sections 7 (I) (b), 9 (3) (a).
A Commissioner holding an inquiry under section 9 (3) (a) of the Indian andPakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act has no jurisdiction to inquiro into mattersoutside the scope of that inquiry. He cannot-, therefore, reject on applicationfor registration under the Act on the ground that it is not in conformity withthe requirements of section 7 (1) (6).
^AlppEAL under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act.
S. 1’. Amerasintjham, for the applicant-appellant-.
J.IF. Suhasinghe, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
March 12, 1957. Sinnetajibv, J.—
In this case the applicant was served with a notice under Section 9 (3)(a) requiring him to satisfy the Commissioner in regard to three matters(1) Residence ; (2) that the applicant was of Indian or Pakistani origin ;and (3) that he was permanently settled in Ceylon. When the applicantappeared at the inquiry the Commissioner began to examine him inregard to the application form which the applicant had submitted forregistration as a Ceylon citizen. He questioned him as to where theapplicant signed and as to what was stated in the affidavit, and in thecourse of that evidence the applicant made the following statement :
“ What I said earlier that the forms were signed by me at the Controller’soffice is correct. What is stated in the affidavit is false. ” Acting uponthis statement the Deputy Commissioner held that the application wasnot in proper form and has not been properly sworn to or affirmed before aJustice of the Peace. He accordingly rejected the application as it didnot conform with the requireiiients of Section 7 (1) (6).
The first question that arises for consideration is whether when dealingwith an inquiry under Section 9 (3) (a) it is open to a Deputy Commis-sioner to go into the question of whether the application is in proper form.
It seems to rue that he is not entitled to do so. The inquiry contemplatedby Section 9 (3) (a) is confined to the merits of the application itself andhas nothing to do with the form in which the application is made.
– When a person comes read}' for inquiry into the matters containedin the notice served under Section 9 (3) (a), he naturally does not addresshis mind or his attention to other matters. "When therefore he is suddenly
subjected to a cr.oss-examination on matters in respect of which he liashad no time to think he is apt to make statements which may not bestrictly accurate. To pounce upon a remark made by a witness undersuch circumstances in regard to a matter which docs not form the subjectmatter of the inquiry and utilise it to reject his application is neitherfair nor consistent with principles of natural justice. In my view it isutterly wrong to do so.
A Commissioner holding an inquiry under Section 9 (3) («) in pursuanceof a notice under Section 9 (1) has no jurisdiction to inquire into mattersoutside the scope of that inquiry and must conform himself to the mattersreferred to in the notice.
I accordingly set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitthe case back to him for an inquiry into the merits of the application andinto matters specified in the notice that was served on him under Section •0 (3) («)•.
The applicant will be entitled to costs of this appeal fixed at Its. 105.
Order set aside.