9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (4) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. That order was made by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and was in these terms: The Chief Commissioner of Delhi is pleased to direct that Mr. Ghaus Mohd a Pakistan national shall not remain in India after the expiry of three days from the date on which this notice is served on him. The order was served on the respondent on February 3, 1958. The respondent did not comply with that order but instead moved the High Court on February 6, 1958, for a writ to quash it. The High Court observed that There must be prima facie material on the basis of which the authority can proceed to pass an order under s. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. No doubt if there exists such a material and then the order is ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or continued presence of foreigners in India. Sub-section (2) of s. 3 gives express power to the Government to pass orders directing that a foreigner shall not remain in India. It was under this provision that the order asking the respondent to leave India was made. There is no dispute that if the respondent was a foreigner, then the order cannot be challenged. The question is whether the respondent was a foreigner. Section 8(l) of the Foreigners Act to which we were referred, deals with the case of a foreigner who is recognised as its national by more than one foreign country or when it is uncertain what his nationality is. In such a case this section gives certain power to the Government to decide the nationality of the foreigner. Sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is a question of fact on which there is a great deal of dispute which would require a detailed examination of evidence. A proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution would not be appropriate for a decision of the question. In our view, this question is best decided by a suit and to this course neither party seems to have any serious objection. As we propose to leave the respondent free to file such a suit if he is so advised, we have not dealt with the evidence on the record on the question of the respondent's nationality so as not to prejudice any proceeding that may be brought in the future. We think, for the reasons earlier mentioned, that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and must be set aside and we order ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
