059-NLR-NLR-V-59-M.-S.-M.-MARUTHAPILLAI-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-.pdf
236 Alaruthapillai v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian <b 'Pakistani
'Residents-
1957Present: Gunasekara, J.M. S. M. MAROTHAPILLAI, Appellant, and COMMISSIONERFOR REGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI.'RESIDENTS, RespondentCitizenship Case No. 203—Application -tVo. H. 4,13S
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, A"o. 3 of 19-10—Application forregistration as citizen—Rrima facio case not established—Police to applicant—Proof of service thereof—Sections 9 (/), 9 (2), 20.-*
Where an application for registration was refused by the Commissioner undersection 9 (2) of tho Indian and Takistani Residents (Citizenship) Act on tho
GUNASEKARA, J.—hlaruthapillai v. Commissioner for Registration of 237
Indian <0 Pakistani Residents-
ground of tho failure of tho applicant to show cause in responso to the noticeunder section 9 (1) alleged to have been sent to him by post in a registered,letter—'.
Held, that before tho notico could bo deemed, under section 20 of the Act,to have been duly scrverl, it must bo proved conclusively that it was duly postedto the applicant.
A-PPEAL against an order made under section 9 (2) of the Indian andPakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act.
S.P. Amara-sitigham, with A. Devarajah, for applicant-appellant.
T.A. d’e S. TVijCsundera-, Crown Counsel, for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult._
November 28, 1957. Gunasekaka, J.—
This is an appeal against an order made under section 9 (2) of the Indianand Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949, refusing anapplication for registration tinder the Act. Tho quest ion for decision iswhether there was before the deputy commissioner who made the ordersufficient evidence to prove that a notice under section 9 (1) of the Acthad been sent to tho appellant by post in a registered letter addressedto his last-known jdaco of residence or of business. Section 20 providesthat, a notice so sent to an applicant shall he deemed to have been dulyserved on him, and the order under appeal appears to have been madeon the footing that tho necessary notice had been so sent to the appellant.
The material upon which tho deputy commissioner based such a findinghas not been set out in his order. It has been contended by the learnedcrown counsol, however, that the deputy commissioner’s file containssufficient documentary evidence to prove that the notice in question hadbeen sent to the appellant in tho manner specified in section 20.
There are in the deputy commissioner’s file the originals and the officecopy of two notices under section 9 (1) and two envelopes in which theoriginal notices could have been sent by post. The notices are dated the24th September 1956 and addressed to. the appellant. One giveshis address as No. 228, Main Street, Wattega-ma (which is the addressgiven in his application), and the other as No. 317, Trincomalee Street,Matale (an address from which ho had once written to the deputy com-missioner). Tho envelopes are addressed to the appellant, one at theWattegama address and the other at the Matale address. They bearpostmarks and endorsements indicating that they have been through thepost as registered articles sent by the deputy commissioner from Kandyon the 24th September 1956, the enyelopo addressed to Wattegama beinglabelled at tho Kandy Post Office as registered article No. 473 and theother as No. 4S9.. . . * -. . • *•…-•_’■»
Tho learned crown counsel conceded that the decision in Sockalingam ..Gheitiar v. The Commissioner for Registration of Indian and Pakistani:.''
238 GtWASEKARA, J.—Maruihapillai v. Commissioner for Registration, of ~
.' . ’ Indian and Pakistani Residents.'
Residents1 stood in the way of a contention that these facts were sufficientby themselves to prove conclusively that a notice was duly posted to theappellant. He maintained, however, that there were certain additionalfacts in the present case that served to distinguish it from SockalingamCheltiar’s case.
-There is a note on tho office copy of the notices indicating that tho oneaddressed to Wattegama was sent in registered packet No. 473 of the24th September 1956 and the other in No. 4S9 of the same date, and acorresponding note has been made on each of the original notices them-selves. The notices also bear date-stamps of the deputy commissioner’soffice, the former with the date 29th September 195G and the latter 26thSeptember 1956. It was contended by the learned crown counsel thattheso circumstances wero sufficient to prove that the notices had boonposted to the appellant in the envelopes in question and were returnedon the dates appearing in the date-stamps.
Tho argument assumes that the reference to postal registration numbersthat is noted on the office copy of tho noticos was written there aboutthe time when the envelopes were posted, and those on the original notices• about tho timo when the envelopes wore returned. Thero is no evidenceas to the existence of any course of business according to which thesereferences would have been so noted, nor as to who noted them, and theydo not appear in the certified copies of the notices that have been preparedfor the purposes of the appeal to this court. I am therefore imable tosay that there can be no reasonable doubt that the postal registrationnumbers were noted on the offico copy of the notice and on the originalscontemporaneously with the posting of the envelopes or their beingreturned, or at any time before the certified copies were prepared. More-over, the deputy commissioner’s filo contains, besides these notices, theoriginals and the office copy of another communication in duplicatebearing the same date as the notices and addressed to the appellant at-tlio same addresses. Tins is a letter calling for certain death certificates.The originals of this letter, too, bear the same date-stamps as tho noticesand, within the date-stamps, numbers corresponding to tho postalregis-.tration numbers appearing on the envelopes. (In this case the numbersare not noted on the office copy.) It may well be that each of the enve-lopes contained, when it was posted, one of the duplicates of this lottorand also tlio appropriate duplicate of tlie notice. But it is not possibleto say that there can bo no reasonable doubt on that point. Bor thesoreasons I am unable to accept the contention that this caso isdistinguishable from Sockalingam Cheltiar’s case x.
Tho deputy commissioner’s order is set aside, and the respondent isdirected to causo to bo served oil the appellant a fresh notice in terms ofsection 9 (1) of tho Act and to proceed thereafter in duo course of law. ■Ho will pay tho appellant Rs. 105 as costs of this appoal.
Order set aside.
(1957) 58 N. L. R. 283.