009-NLR-NLR-V-58-K.-EASIAH-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PAKISTAN.pdf
Present : Gratiaen, J.
K. EASIAH, Appellant, and COiLYIlSSIONER I'OR REGISTRA-TION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS, Respondent
S. C. Application 263—In the matter of an appeal under Section 15 ofthe Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act
.4pplicalion for registration as citizen—Primsi facie case not established—Failureto show cause—Refusal of application—Right of appeal—Indian and PakistaniResidents (Citizenship) Act, Xo. 3 of 1940 (as amended by Act Xo. 37 of 1930),ss. 9 (l) and (2), 13 (7)._
When tin applicant fails to show cause against an order nisi made tindersection 9 (1) of tho Indian nnd Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, the Com-missioner lias no option but to make an order under section 9 (2) refusingregistration. ■
Tho jurisdiction of tho Supreme Court under section 15 (1) is confined, ns intho ease of any other appellate jurisdiction, to the correction of errors madeby tho tribunal of first instance.
Quaere, whether an order mudo under section 9 (2) is of a purely adminis-trative character.
I^lPPEAE from an order of the Commissioner for the Registrationof Indian and Pakistani Residents.
A'. Palasunlharam, for the applicant-appellant.
J/. Tiruchclvam, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
-June 10, 1053. Gratt.-iex, J.—
The facts arising on this appeal are substantially the same as those•which were recently considered by my brother Swan in SivanptiUai v.Commissioner for the Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents *.
The appellant had applied to be registered as a citizen of Ceylon underthe provisions of the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) ActNo. 3 of 1949 as amended by Act No. 37 of 1950. After due considerationof the application and of the statutory report furnished by an investi-gating officer the Commissioner made an order nisi under section 9 (I)intimating to the appellant that, unless he showed cause to the contrarywithin the period of three months prescribed by the Act, his applicationfor registration would be refused. The appellant did not avail himselfof this opportunity but chose instead, after the statutory period fixed bylaw had expired, to appeal to this Court under- section 15 (I) againstthe Commissioner’s refusal to grant him the privilege of registration.
3Iy brother Swan has held in Sivanpillai’s case (supra) that in suchcircumstances the remedy by way of appeal to this Court was not avail-able. I agree with this conclusion, but, with great respect,- I would1 (1933) 54 X. L. R. 310.
prefer not to attempt to solve the difficult, question whether the orderunder appeal is of a judicial, a quasi-judicial or a purely administrativecharacter. A person who desires to avail himself of the privilege – ofcitizenship under the Act is required to follow t-he procedure prescribedby that Act. If he does so, he has a right of appeal to this Court againstan order which is adverse to him. If he does not, it necessarily followsthat no good grounds exist for interference with the refusal of his applica-tion. The jurisdiction of this Court under section 15 (1) is- confined,as in the case of any other appellate jurisdiction, to the correction oferrors made by the tribunal of first instance. In this case there has beenno such error to which the appellant can point. The Commissionerhad no option but to make an order under section 9(2) refusing regis-tration after the appellant had failed to show cause against the order nisiwithin the period of three months prescribed by the Act. I wouldtherefore dismiss the appeal with costs.-
Appeal dismissed.