126-NLR-NLR-V-58-S.-MUTTIAH-Appellantand-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PAKISTANI-.pdf
1957Present: Sinnefamby, J.
S. MUTTIAH, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FORREGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKIS-TANI RESIDENTS, RespondentS. O. 63—Citizenship Case 2o. PjO. 4.609
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 0 of 10 !0—-Notice under sections0(1) and 20—Procedure for sendee.
Wlierc .a notice issued under section 9 (1) of tho Indian ana PakistanResidents (Citizenship) Act is returned unserved and the Commissioner subse-quently becomes aware, within three months from the date of tho notice, thatthe applicant has changed his address, tho applicant should bo informed ofthe fact- that notice under section 9 (1) had been sent to him and had beenreturned unserved. .
SOS
A-PPEAL under the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship)Act.
,S. P. A marasinghum, for the applicant-appellant.
V. G. B. Percra, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
April 2, 1957. SrsxETAMBY, J.—
In this case the applicant in the application form had given his addressas Gonakclle Bazaar, Kandapola. Subsequently, lie wrote a letterto the Deputy Commissioner on the 4tli May, 1953, asking the DeputyCommissioner to note his change of address as 3, High Forest-, Maturate.This was duty noted on the application form.
After the Investigating Officer’s report, the Deputy Commissionerissued a notice under Section 9 (1) informing the applicant that he hadfailed to prove that lie was resident in Ceylon for certain periods andthat ho had failed to establish certain other requirements. This noticewhich was dated 2Sth May, 1956, was addressed to High Forest, Maturata.It was posted on the 30th Maj' and returned on the 14th June, accordingto the date stamp.
Under Section 9 (2), where no cause is shown to the contrary withina, period of three months, the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to rejectthe application. Three months from the date of notice would be the2Sth August, but no action was taken on that day. Prior to that,however, on the 4th July, the applicant submitted to the same DeputyCommissioner quoting the same number under which his applicationis registered, viz., R/O. 4,509, an application of an identity certificate toenable him to proceed to India. This application is in the file and wasaccompanied by a letter dated 2nd July signed by the applicant. Thisletter too has the application Mo. R/O- 4,509 quoted.
It would appear that on receipt of this application, the DeputyCommissioner would have received some kind of intimation that theaddress in Ceylon of the applicant was on that day, once again, GonakclleBazaar, Kandapola. That is the address given in the appropriatecage.
On the 26th September, the applicant submitted another letterwhich bears a date stamp 27th February as being the date it was receivedin the Deputy Commissioner’s office, making a further request for histravel documents. In that letter, he states that in-July 1956 he camepersonalty with his wife to his office and filled up the form and identitycertificates giving his permanent address as Gonakclle Bazaar, Kanda-pola. It would appear, according to that letter, that on the 24thSeptember, he had called for these identity certificates, when lie wasinformed that the identity certificates could not have been issued ashe had not replied to the notice under Section 9 (1) sent to High Forest.By that date, the three months had elapsed but on the date on which
SOIthe application for identity certificates, which appears at page 63 ofthe file, was filed, the original address mentioned was within the threemonths.
Section 20 requires that notice should be served personal!}' : that is thekind of service which the section contemplates; but it provides alsofor a case in which it is not possible to serve notice personal]}', by enactingthat a notice shall be deemed to have been served if it is sent by registeredpost to the last known place of abode.
Notice was sent under Section 9 (1) in this case to the last known placeof abode at the time it was issued. The main object of Section 20 bcincrto effect personal service, it seems to me that once it was discovered thatthe appellant had changed his address, lie should have been informedof the fact that notice under Section 9 (1) had been sent to him, andhad been returned unserved on the 19th .June. That notice unservedwas in the file when the ajiplicant made his application for the identitycertificates on the 4th July, 1956.
The object of serving the notice, as stated in Section 9 (1), is to giveto the applicant an opportunity of showing cause to the contrary. If,therefore, it was known that at or about the time of the issue of thenotice the applicant had changed his address and the notice had not beenserved and was returned unserved, it could, had appropriate steps beentaken, have been communicated to him within the three months.Natural justice demands that the applicant should receive the notice;otherwise he is denied the opportunity of showing cause, which is themain object of issuing the notice under Section 9 (1).
In this case, one cannot blame the Deputy Commissioner for not issuingthe notice to Gonakellc Bazaar, in view of the letter notifying the changeof address dated 4th May, but having regal'd to all the circumstancesin this case, I think it is a case in which the applicant should be given anopportunity of showing cause to the contrary.