045-NLR-NLR-V-57-P.-PITCHAMUTHU-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PAKIS.pdf
1955Present : Basnayake, A.C.J., and Pulle, J.
P. PJTCHAMVTHU, Appellant, and CCDDIISSIONER FORREGISTRATION OP INDIAN AND PAKISTANIRESIDENTS, Respondent
. S. C. 4.S9—Indian and- Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Appeal
JYo. C. C. 3347
JCndian and I’ak-istnni Residents (Citizenship) Act A~o. 3 of 10-JO —Section 10—Rightof appeal thereunder—1’owcrs of the appellate Court.
An order made under section 14 (7) (&) of tlio Indian and Pakistani Posidcnls(Citizenship) Act is appealable under section 15 of that Act .
In an appeal preferred under section 15 of the Indian and Pakistani Kesidents(Citizenship) Act the Supremo Court lias no power to remit the case hack tothe Commissioner for further investigation.
PPEAL under section 15 of the Indian and Pakistani Residents,•(Citizenship) Act.
Walter Jay at warden e, with S. P. Ant at asinrjham. for applicant-appellant.
11. .-J. Wijetnanne, Acting Deputy Solicitor-General, with 7?. S. fVana-.suv.dc.ia, Crown Counsel, for respondent.
September 2, 1955. Dasxayakk. A.C.J.—
"When this appeal came up for hearing before my brother Pulle, on■ Gth June this year, learned Counsel for the appellant invited him to remitthe case back to the Commissioner for the Registration of Indian andPakistani Residents to enable him to adduce further evidence regardingthe residence of the appellant’s children.
As my brother was not satisfied that such an order could properlybe made by this Court in an appeal under section 15 of the Indian andPakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1919 (hereinafter referredto as the Act), lie gave Counsel an opportunity of presenting a fuller.argument on the point and ordered that the case be relisted when theywere read}'. The matter has now been listed in pursuance of that order.
Learned Deputy Solicitor-General who appears for the Crown liasraised a preliminary objection to the appeal being heard at all. Hecontends that the order against which the appeal lias been taken is onemade under section 14 (7) (b) of the Act and that an appeal docs not heagainst such an order. He submits that an appeal lies only against an• order made under section 11 or 14 (G).-
It will be helpful if I were to state shortly the facts of this ease before.1 discuss the argument of the learned Deputy Solicitor-General.
The appellant Pitcliamuthu PitcJiamuthu who applied for registration ■as a citizen of Ceylon under the Act was given notice under section 9 (1) •by the Deputy Commissioner that he had decided to refuse his applica-tion on the grounds specified in the notice, unless lie showed cause to-the contrary within a period of three months from the date thereof.Thereupon the appellant asked the Deputy Commissioner to fix an inquiryunder section 9 (3) (a) so that he may show cause.
The Deputy Commissioner accordingly made order under section9 (3) (a) appointing the time and the place for an inquiry. At the close-of the inquiry the Deputy Commissioner made order refusing the appli-cation under section 14 (7) (6). The present appeal is from that order..Section 15 which provides for an appeal to this Court reads as folows :—
,£ (1) An appeal against an order refusing or allowing an applicationfor registration may be preferred to the Supreme Court in the pre-scribed manner Ly the applicant or, as the case may be, by the personwho lodged any objection which has been overruled by the order.
“ (2) liaeh appeal under this section shall be preferred within three -months of the date of the order by means of a petition setting out thefacts and the grounds of appeal.
“ (3) The date on which an order allowing an application takes -effect shall—
where an appeal has been preferred, be the dale on which the
Supreme Court affirms such order or makes or directs the -Commissioner to make such order ; and
where an appeal has not been preferred, be the date next
succeeding the day on which the time limit for appeals,specified in sub-sec-tion (2), expires ”.
Learned Deputy Solicitor-General’s argument that an appeal has beengiven only against an order made by the Commissioner under section 11or section 14 (6) is one that docs not commend itself to us. We are unable -to read into section J5 the restriction he seeks to place on it. Thatsection gives a right of appeal against an order refusing or allowing anapplication for registration An order made under section 14 (7) {b)at the close of an inquiry held in pursuance of section i) (3) (n) refusingan application is clearly within the words of section 15 and cannot beexcluded from its ambit. There is nothing in the statute that restrictsthe application of the words in section 15 to appeals from orders refusingor allowing application for registration under section 11 or 14 (G). Wetherefore overruled the preliminary objection and proceeded to hearthe appeal on its .merits.
The appellant has not satisfied us that the Deputy Commissioner was1wrong, nor has he been able to point to any provision of law under whichtins Court may remit an appeal back to the Commissioner for further 'investigation. Indeed we do not think that such a procedure is contemp-lated by the Act. The powers of this Court in an appeal are to be found’in section 15 itself, and this Court is not entitled to exercise any powers –
-outside those conferred by that, section. The power to remit for furtherinvestigation is not inherent in that section and cannot be exercised
unless it is expressly granted. Here there is no such express grant. Sucha power is granted by section 37 ol the Courts Ordinance, section 347
-of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 773 of the Civil Procedure
Code. But those provisions appl3r only to proceedings which are regulated"by those enactments and do not extend to an appeal under section 15.-of the Act.
When a statute creates a new jurisdiction and confers new powers'for carrying out the objects of the statute and gives si right of appealfrom the decisions of the tribunal so created, the powers of the appellate'■Court when hearing an appeal under the statute are limited to those••expressly granted.
' TVo accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs which we fix at Its. 105.■Pot-lt:, J.—1 agree.
Appc-al dismissed.
«?>.