Gujarat High Court
Yug Jasmin Purohit Minor Through Mother ... vs Regional Passport Officer on 3 September, 2021
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/SCA/501/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 501 of 2021
========================================================
YUG JASMIN PUROHIT MINOR THROUGH MOTHER NIRALIBEN JASMIN
PUROHIT
Versus
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
========================================================
Appearance:
MS NAMRATA MULCHANDANI FOR MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 03/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Namrata Mulchandani for learned Advocate Shri Manish Patel on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Kshitij Amin on behalf of the respondent.
2. By way of this petition the petitioner challenges communication dated 22.12.2020 whereby application made by the mother of the present petitioner for issuance of passport had been rejected on the ground that since mother of the petitioner had acquired foreign nationality and since mother of the petitioner was holding custody of the petitioner since he was minor therefore the petitioner also ceases to be an Indian national.
3. Learned Advocate Ms. Mulchandani refers to an order of this Court Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 06 21:13:32 IST 2021 C/SCA/501/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021 dated 03.05.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2602 of 2019 whereby similar issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Coram :
A.Y. Kogje, J.). The Co-ordinate Bench vide order referred to above has explained the ambit of Section 3(A) of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 inasmuch as the Co-ordinate Bench has also held that according to Section 3(1), every person born in India on or after 26.01.1950 but before 01.07.1987 shall be treated to be a citizen of the country. The Co-ordinate Bench has at paragraphs no. 6 and 7 stated as thus:
"[6] In the present case, by virtue of Circular, it appears that the respondent-department has treated the petitioner to be the non-citizen which in the opinion of this Court is directly against what is provided under Section 3 for citizenship by birth. Section Clause 3(a) reads as under:-
"3. Citizenship by birth.-(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), every person born in India,- (a) on or after the 26th day of January,1950, but before the 1st day of July 1987."
[7] The provision begins with an exception to read the issue as provided in sub-section(2) that every person born in India is citizen by birth. The undisputed fact that the petitioner was born in India and there is ample evidence to substantiate his claim to be born in India so as to claim citizenship by birth as provided under Section 3 and as the petitioner is to be treated as citizen of India, it is obligatory upon the passport authority to recognize his citizenship and issue a passport in this regard."
4. Having regard to the findings recorded by this Court which position and which order is still good law which could be disputed by learned Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 06 21:13:32 IST 2021 C/SCA/501/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/09/2021 Advocate Shri Amin, therefore the present petition deserves consideration.
5. Communication dated 22.12.2020 is quashed and set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner having application ARN 20- 0007982558 dated 11.12.2020 shall be considered by the respondent authority in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
6. Needless to say that in case the decision is adverse to the present petitioner, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same, before the appropriate court of law.
With these observations and directions, petition stands disposed of as allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NIRU Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 06 21:13:32 IST 2021