Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.6. Assailing the order dated 31.08.2017, the petitioner filed W.P. No.30601 of 2017 before this Court which was disposed of by the order dated 11.09.2017 directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the review application filed by the petitioner under Section 15A of the Act within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of 'deprivation order' granting liberty to submit additional material, if any, before respondent No.1.

2.7. Respondent No.1 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner by the order dated 13.12.2017. Questioning the orders dated 31.08.2017 and 13.12.2017, the petitioner filed W.P. No.163 BVR,J of 2018 before this Court. This Court, by the order dated 10.07.2019 set aside the orders dated 31.08.2017 and 13.12.2017 holding that they are not sustainable on various grounds especially on the ground that apart from requirement of fraud or false representation under Section 10(2) of the Act, the authority ought to have considered whether continuation of citizenship would not be conducive to public good. It was left open to the competent authority to terminate citizenship of the petitioner only if it is found that continuation of his citizenship is not conducive to the public good. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 was passed by the Under Secretary to Government, Border Management, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, who is the competent authority.

3.1. It is the case of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the petitioner made false representation and concealed facts regarding details of his visit to abroad immediately preceding the date of his citizenship application under Section 5(1)(f) of the Act. He obtained registration of citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) of the Act by means of fraud, false representation and concealment of facts and BVR,J his actions attract provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act which makes him liable to be deprived of his citizenship. The competent authority has considered several aspects with reference to provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act and finally took a decision by following the directions of this Court.

By considering various provisions of the Act, particularly, Section 5(1)(f) of the Act and the details furnished by the petitioner in Column '6' of his application submitted under Form III B and his reply dated 27.11.2008, the COI in its report dated 10.03.2007 opined that the petitioner made false representation in his communication dated 27.11.2008 about his visits to Germany and obtained Certificate of Indian Citizenship by playing fraud upon the Government of India.

16. It is relevant to note that the petitioner filed W.A. No.684 of 2019 challenging the order in W.P. No.163 of 2018 dated 10.07.2019, however, chose to withdraw the same and accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 21.08.2019. Thus, the order of this Court in W.P. No.163 of 2018 dated 10.07.2019 holding that the petitioner has given false representation and there is misstatement of fact attained finality. The same was pointed out by the COI in its report dated 10.03.2017 and the impugned order dated 20.11.2019. The petitioner has not been able to urge any new facts or raised any contention to differ with the opinion of the COI; thus, this Court does not have any hesitation in holding that the petitioner indulged in giving false statement in his application for citizenship dated 31.03.2008. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.