Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: citizenship constitution of india Court: allahabad Year: 1965 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.018 seconds)

Jul 21 1965 (HC)

Hadi Hasan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-21-1965

Reported in : AIR1966All127

..... to pakistan is a finding of fact that is binding on this court and cannot be challenged in a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india. the argument appears to be obviously misconceived. the principle that a finding of fact cannot be re-opened at the writ stage except under ..... . the matter cannot, therefore, be re-opened in these proceedings without contravening the express provisions of law as contained in section 9(2) of the citizenship act read with rule 30 framed thereunder.5. for the above reasons, i am of opinionthat this writ petition has no force. i, accordingly dismiss it ..... criminal appeal. any finding given by the sessions judge cannot, therefore, be treated binding in these proceedings. moreover, section 9(2) of the indian citizenship act states that the decision on this question is to be given by the central government; hence, in any case the finding that would be binding ..... the 28th december, 1963, and has been filed on behalf of the opposite-party. according to the said order, the petitioner has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of pakistan after the 26th january, 1950, but before the 25th may, 1955.2. the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me ..... to pakistan. there was a further prayer that in case the central government happened to pass an order under section 9(2) of the indian citizenship act during the pendency of the writ petition, the said order may also be quashed by a writ of certiorari. it appears that during the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1965 (HC)

Rashid Hasan Roomi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-15-1965

Reported in : AIR1967All154; 1967CriLJ309

..... was born of indian parents in the district of fatehpur and has been living since his birth in this country. he was here on 26th january, 1950, when the constitution of india came into force. the petitioner's father syed siddiq hasan migrated to pakistan in 1948 leaving behind the petitioner who was then a minor and his younger brothers and sisters ..... .' 14. we are, therefore, of opinion that on the facts of the present case it will not be reasonable to hold that although the petitioner was domiciled in india on the date when constitution came into force because he happened to be a minor of about 13 or 14 years on that date his domicile must be linked with that of his ..... minor his domicile is linked with that of his father and therefore he cannot be held to have domiciled in india on the 26th january, 1950, when the constitution came into force and as such cannot be held to be a citizen of india. reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decisions reported in 1954 all lj 156 : (air 1954 all ..... father who had migrated to pakistan in the year 1948 after deserting hini in india.15. the petitioner was born of indian parents in the territory of india. he had his domicile here and at the commencement of the constitution had been ordinarily a resident in the territory of india for more than five years immediately preceding such commencement. hehas been enrolled as a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1965 (HC)

State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Yasin

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-25-1965

Reported in : AIR1967All320; 1967CriLJ833

..... crossed over to pakistan in the year 1950 he continued to be an indian national because the question of his having lost the indian citizenship had not been decided in accordance with citizenship act. 1955 he, therefore, acquitted him. 6. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. it is no ..... he did not assert that he had migrated from this country after the enforcement of the constitution. in face of the admission made by him in his visa, the testimony of his two witnesses that he had left india for pakistan in 1950 was not such on which any reliance could be safely placed. there ..... this case, however, there is no evidence that any order has been passed by the authorities after january 19, 1957, directing the opposite party to leave india within a particular period. in the circumstances the question of contravention of any order under the act which can be punished under section 14 does not arise. ..... , is, however, another reason on account of which his acquittal cannot be disturbed in this appeal. 8. the opposite party admittedly entered india in the year 1953. according to the definition of a foreigner as it stood in the act of (in ?) 1953 before the amendment of 1957, any ..... harjeet singh who stated on the basis of the entries made in his register and also in the passport and visa that mohammad yasin had entered india in 1953 and was staying after the expiry of the prescribed period and had thus contravened paragraph 7 (2) of the foreigners order. in cross .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1965 (HC)

Shahadat Vs. Superintendent District Jail and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-15-1965

Reported in : AIR1967All11

..... the foreigners order 1948, subject to certain conditions. this notification has been issued by the president in exercise of the powers conferred by clause 1 of article 258 of the constitution. the argument of the learned counsel that the entrustment is not in accordance with the aforesaid article is, therefore, wholly misconceived and must be rejected.6. by virtue of the ..... the functions of the central government to the state government and to its executive officers by the central government is not in accordance withthe provisions of article 268 of the constitution and as such the state government or its officers cannot derive any authority in law to function in respect of the foreigner's act, foreigners' (internment) order and registration of ..... term visa in august 1956. the government of uttar pradesh moved the central government to determine the national status of the petitioner in accordance with section 9(2) of the citizenship act, 1955, and the rules made thereunder. a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause. in response to that notice the petitioner sent a written representation to ..... the central government praying that he be declared to be a citizen of india. the central government, however, by its order dated the 27th august, 1956, after considering the cause shown by the petitioner determined that the petitioner had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of pakistan after 26th of january, 1950, and before 24th of july, 1956 in pursuance of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1965 (HC)

Shahadat Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-15-1965

Reported in : 1967CriLJ12

..... under the foreigners' order 1948, subject to certain conditions. this notification has been issued by the president in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses of article 258 of the constitution. the argument of the learned counsel that the entrustment is not in accordance with the aforesaid article is, therefore, wholly misconceived and must be rejected.6. by virtue of the ..... functions of the central government to the state government and to its executive officers by the central government is not in accordance with the provisions of article 258 of the constitution and as such the state government or its. officers cannot derive any authority in law to function in respect of the foreigner's act, foreigners' (internment) order and registration ..... term visa in august 1956. the government of uttar pradesh moved the central government to determine the national status of the petitioner in accordance with section 9(2) of the citizenship act, 1955, and the rules made thereunder. a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause. in response to that notice the petitioner sent a written representation to ..... the central government praying that he be declared to be a citizen of india. the central government, however, by its order dated the 27th august, 1956, after considering the cause shown by the petitioner determined that the petitioner had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of pakistan after 26th of january, 1950, and before 24th of july, 1956. in pursuance .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //