JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.
1. The petitioner is a Pakistani National. On 6th August.1997 a governmental order was passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs/Groh Mantralaya saying that the petitioner obtained Pakistani Passport in 1994. By obtaining Pakistani Passport she preferred to renounce her Indian Citizenship voluntarily. Therefore, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder had no hesitation whatsoever to declare her a Pakistani National for the act of renouncing her Indian Citizenship after 25th January,1994 when she obtained second Pakistani Passport and became major.
2. Writ jurisdiction of this Court was invoked on 27th February,1998 and an interim order was obtained from a Division Bench of this Court on 1st April, 1998 to the extent that petitioner shall not be deported for the time being. That interim order was continued time to time.
3. At the time of hearing before this Court, the Court wanted to get further materials from the petitioner as well as Govt. of India for the purpose of final disposal.
4. The petitioner wanted to establish that she has two previous marriage which was ultimately terminated by Talak. We do not want to go such controversy since she has married thereafter and living in India. We are only concerned about the interest of the country vis-a-vis the petitioner. The Government of India contended on the basis of their instruction dated 30th May,2005 that if the application is made through proper channel i.e. in terms of Rules 7 and 9 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 the purpose will be subserved. The application will be made to the District Collector who in turn forward the same to the State Government for future transmission to the concerned Ministry of Government of India. At the same time in paragraph 3 of the instructions the concerned Authority has made a note that if the applicant is holding valid Passport and Residential Permit since 1994 she can make an application for grant of Indian Citizenship as a person married to a citizen of India or as a person of Indian origin, provided she has completed seven years of stay in India.
5. It appears to us that by the passage of time or upon obtaining the interim order from this court as far back on 1st April 1998 long eight years have already been elapsed. Under such circumstances, it gives a presumption favourably that the petitioner's prayer might have been genuine and the same may be considered by the authority independently without being influenced by the earlier order, if it is made through proper channel.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India cited Bhanwaroo Khanand Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. There the factual difference is this that the petitioner instead of returning Pakistan after expiry of the Visa underground from his existence. The present case is not factually similar to the same.
7. Therefore, we feel it is appropriate that an application will be made by the petitioner to the District Controller within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of this order and it will be heard upon giving reasonable opportunity of hearing within a further period of fortnight from the date of making such application and the same shall be forwarded to the State Government within a period of fortnight from the date of passing order, so that it can be transmitted to the Ministry of the Central Government within one month thereafter for the disposal by the Ministry within such time. At the time of due consideration either by this State or by the Central Government the interest of the Country will be considered.
8. Thus the writ petition is disposed of.
9. The interim order which was passed earlier will continue till after 72 hours of final decision to be communicated by the concerned Ministry to the petitioner. A photo copy of the instructions obtained by the Central Government counsel be kept on record. Amendment application is also allowed, in view of the final disposal of the writ petition.
10. No order is passed as to costs.
11. A copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner on payment of usual charges and free of cost to Sri Devi Shanker Shukla, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel as well as learned, Standing Counsel for the State Government.