096-NLR-NLR-V-54-S.-P.-PORAVIA-PILLAI-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIA-AND.pdf
SWAN J.—Poraoia Pitlai v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and 407
Pakistani Residents
Present: Swan «T.
S. P. PORAVIA PU/LAI, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FORREGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS,
Respondent
S. C. 621—Indian and, Pakistani Residents J. 284
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, Ho. 3 of 1949—Inquiry thereunder■—Evidence and procedure—Section Id (4)—Scope of.
Where application is made for registration as a citizen of Ceylon under theIndian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, the fact that the applicanthad, after the coming into operation of the Act, declared himself temporarilyresident in Ceylon does not amount to an estoppel hut can be taken intoconsideration by the Commissioner, under section 14 (4), in arriving at hisdecision.
A
-lA-PPEAL from an order of the Commissioner for the Registration ofIndian and Pakistani Residents.
S. Jayawickreme, for the appellant.
M. Tiruchelvam, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. milt.
February 3, 1953. Swan J.—
This is an appeal from an order made by the Commissioner for the Re-gistration of Indian and Pakistani residents refusing the applicationof the appellant to be registered as a citizen of Ceylon. The grounds ofrefusal which are contained in the order dated J|. 1. 1952 are that theappellant had failed to satisfy the Commissioner that he was permanentlysettled in Ceylon. The appellant had made an application for registrationupon which the Commissioner took action as required by Section 8.Apparently the investigating officer sent an adverse report and the Com-missioner in the exercise of the discretion vested in him made order underSection 9 (2) stating that he had decided to refuse the application unlesscause was shown to the contrary within the stipulated period of threemonths from the tentative order of refusal. The appellant showed orpurported to show cause by letter as well as at the inquiry which the Com-missioner* decided to hold. Eventually the Commissioner made orderrefusing the application and the grounds of refusal are-set out in his orderdated 10.1.1952 which was communicated to the appellant on 23.1.1952.I shall reproduce the entire text of that order :—
The applicant has declared himself temporarily resident in Ceylonafter the coming into operation of the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949. If that declaration was true, he could
408 SWAN J.—P or avia Pillai v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and
Pakistani Residents
hardly have been permanently settled in Ceylon at the time of cominginto operation of the Act. He now represents that he signed the declara-tion in order to send money to India immediately. He was either de-ceiving the Government at that stage in regard to the nature of hisresidence or, if he was not, he was not then permanently resident. Hecan hardly be heard now to say that he was deceiving the Government.In making the declaration he created evidence against himself and isestopped from seeking to prove now that he had permanently settled inCeylon at the time of coming into operation of the Act.
The Act itself was designed to benefit Indians and Pakistanis whohad already permanently settled in Ceylon, and it is not, in my opinion,relevant to inquire whether the applicant, not being permanentlysettled at the time of coming into operation of the Act, subsequently,and before the date of his application had permanently settled.
The application is refused. ”
Section 14 (4) of the Act provides as follows :—
‘ ‘ The proceedings at an inquiry shall as far as possible be free fromthe formalities and technicalities of the rules of procedure and evidenceapplicable to a court of law, and may be conducted by the Commissionerin any manner, not inconsistent with the principles of natural justice,which to him may seem best adapted to elicit proof concerning thematters that are investigated. 15
Undoubtedly in the order made the Commissioner has taken a mistakenview of the legal doetrine of estoppel. But as Lord Greene pointed out inthe case of B. Johnson (Builders) Ltd. v. the Minister of Health x,
“ …. if the legislature chooses to mix, for the purpose of one
essentially administrative process, a quasi-judicial element so as to makea sort of hybrid operation of it, one cannot expect lines of division toproduce an entirely logical result. ”
Although the declaration of the appellant does not amount to an es-toppel it was a fact that the Commissioner could take into consideration inarriving at his decision. One has also to bear in mind that the Commis-sioner was entitled to take into consideration the report of the investi-gating officer made under Section 8 (2) (6). In the circumstances I amunable to say that the order made was wrong. The appeal, therefore,fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(1947) 2 A.E.R. 395.