Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-26-1965
Reported in : AIR1967Cal402
..... 14 of the foreigners act. further, in that case, the petitioner was serving the pakistan government at the time our constitution came into force and where the petitioner also applied for his registration as the citizen of india under section 5 of the citizenship act similarly, in golam rasul v. superintendent of police.' : air1965cal302 no proceeding under section 14 of the foreigner's ..... , 1957 only for the purpose of crossing the border. (f) as he has not left india before 26th of january 1950, article 7 of the constitution does not apply to him. article 9 also of the constitution has no application in his case because he has not voluntarily acquired citizenship of any foreign state. (g) in any event, as the question has arisen as ..... not apply in the case of an indian citizen who has migrated or left india after january 26, 1950. it further held that in such a case article 9 of the constitution should be made applicable and, as such, a decision under section 9(2) of the citizenship act is to be made by the central government before the aggrieved person can be ..... v. state of u. p. : air1963all260 , where the learned judge after discussing the scope of ss. 8 and 9 of the citizenship act came to the conclusion that the onus of proving that a citizen of india has lost his citizenship is on the party seeking to deprive him his right of a citizen. he also dealt with the question of migration and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-19-1965
Reported in : AIR1966Cal552,70CWN82
..... - he argued that the said declaration dated january 13, 1950, was made by the appellant for the purpose of his application for acquiring indian citizenship in fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by article 5 of the constitution. the learned advocate general, however, referred to a letter written by the appellant on january 24, 1957, to the deputy commissioner of police, ..... the appellant cannot claim a right of residence on the basis of his alleged domicile when he clearly communicated his intention to give up his claim to indian citizenship and also to leave india immediately.54. mr. roy chowdhury contended that there was no substance in the appellant's contention that he had acquired an indian domicile. there was nothing on ..... not for any other purpose.53. the learned advocate general, further argued that in any event having regard to the withdrawal of the application for citizenship, by the appellant and his decision to leave india immediately as mentioned in the said letter, the appellant's contention that his alleged domicile conferred upon him a right of residence, must fail. this ..... security control office, passport section, calcutta, which is to be found at page 167 of the paper book, and by which the appellant unconditionally withdrew the application for indian citizenship and communicated his decision to leave india .....Tag this Judgment!