JUDGMENT
D.G. Deshpande, J.
1. All these appeals involve common question of facts and, the advocates are same and the respondents are also same. Therefore, I heard the advocates jointly and I am passing this common order.
2. All the three appellants have filed suits before the City Civil Court claiming identical reliefs, for example, relief claimed by the appellant in Appeal No. 976 of 2002 was for declaration that the deportation of the plaintiff on the earlier occasion dated 31-12-1996 is illegal, void and of no effect; and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendants from deporting the plaintiffs out of India. The 1st defendant in that suit was the State of Maharashtra and the 2nd defendant was the Union of India. They are the respondents in these appeals. The contentions of the plaintiffs that they are the citizens of India and they cannot be deported were negatived by the trial Court. Therefore, these appeals.
3. Counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have filed number of documents on record as per list of documents on record page 36 of Appeal No. 976 of 2002. Similar documents have been relied upon by the other appellants in support of their contentions. None of these documents show that, the plaintiffs have any proof that they were born in India. Though the plaintiffs have pleaded that they were born in India in the plaint, the pleadings are absolutely vague, that no particulars as to how and where their parents were residing, whether their parents are the residents of India and they are the citizens of India and, a bald statement that the plaintiffs were born in India is made. But, however, it does not get support from any document showing that the plaintiffs were born in India.
4. Only document that is strongly relied upon along with others is the passports issued to all the plaintiffs. Counsel for the appellants submitted that once the passport is issued, it has presumptive value, because according to him, the passports are issued only to the Indian Citizens. He also submitted that there is no contention of the respondents that the passports are bogus, forged or fabricated. He further contended that the plaintiffs have not been convicted under any Act for the alleged illegal residence in India.
5. The counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2925 of 2002, Mr. Salamat Ali S/o. Haji Usman Ali v. State of Maharashtra and another, in support of his contentions.
6. I do not find that the passport can be considered as conclusive proof of the plaintiffs being resident of citizenship. It may be that the passports are genuine, they are not false, bogus or fabricated, but the passports are issued on the basis of information supplied by the plaintiffs. Issuance of passports does not conclusively prove that the person, to whom the passport is issued, is the citizen of India and particularly when the plaintiffs filed suit for a particular declaration and injunction it was obligatory upon them to prove that they were born in India; that their parents were Indian origins or had rights which were necessary to confer their citizenship of this country. The plaintiffs have no documents in support of their contentions or claim. Therefore, mere passport issued in their favour cannot be a proof of citizenship. Other documents i.e. ration card, voters-list are all documents which the plaintiffs got because of their continued residence. Mere residence, howsoever long, does not confer any citizenship nor any statement was made nor there are any pleadings or prayer for that declaration.
7. The judgment of the Division Bench, referred to above, is not applicable in the circumstances of this case. In that case, the petitioner was required to file a writ petition against refusal of the Rationing Authority to return the petitioner’s ration card on the ground that as per the investigation conducted by Crime Investigation Branch, the petitioner is Bangladeshi.
8. The petitioner in that case has submitted that he was born in Mumbai; he was educated in Mumbai and the documents viz. School Leaving Certificate issued by the Municipal Urdu School at Mumbai and Marriage Certificate were produced. Therefore, the Division Bench has rightly held that in view of the proof of birth in Mumbai of the petitioner, in that case, the Rationing Authority were not justified in declining to return the Ration Card.
9. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have not proved their birth in India and that is the basic requirement of claiming citizenship. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the claim and contentions of the plaintiffs.
10. Counsel for the respondent-State relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2002 SC 1614, Bhanwaroo Khan v. Union of India and the another judgment, A.I. Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties v. Union of India. In the case of Bhanwaroo Khan, the Supreme Court has held that long stay in country and enrolment in voters-list does not confer any right to an alien to continue to stay in country. In view of this and in view of the aforesaid reasons, all the appeals are dismissed with civil applications. Certified copy expedited.
Parties to act upon ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar.