Judgment 1. THE petitioner No. 1 who is wife of petitioner No. 2 is an u. S. National and the petitioner No. 2 is husband of petitioner No. 1 and he is a citizen of India. These two petitioners moved the instant writ application questioning the validity of the impugned order dated 9th March, 1983 rejecting the application of petitioner No. 1 for grant of extension of stay in India as well as the impugned order dated 19th march, 1983 rejecting her application for Indian citizenship, annexed as annexures e and F respectively to the said petition. 2. THE facts of the case in short is as follows :- The petitioner No. 1 came to India as a tourist sometime in 1976 and after coming to India she contacted Mother teressa and she was interested in the organisation of Mother Teressa and decided to devote and dedicated herself to the causes of uncared for orphan children staying in jails and also hospitals and other institution in a hopeless condition. In 1977 the petitioner no. 1 again came to India and worked with the mother Teressa for about 5 months for rehabilitation of abandoned and orphan children. Thereafter she herself established an organisation known as "international Mission of Hope (India) Society", hereinafter referred to as I, M. H. India) and registered the same under the West Bengal Societies Registration act 1961. The Registered Office of the said Society is at 35/6, Tollygunge Circular Road, calcutta-53 and the petitioner has become the founder President of the said Organisation. It has been stated that some doctors, nurses and Ayahs have been engaged to look after a number of orphan children kept in the said place. 3. IT has also been stated that the mode of work of the Society is to nourish children born to mostly unmarried and widow mothers and abandoned by their mothers in Hospitals, Nursing Homes and also the society received children from the different jails throughout West Bengal. The society is engaged in rehabilitating the orphans with a good family in India as well as abroad. 4. IT has been also stated that since 1978 about 600 children from the petitioners' organisation were adopted by many families in India and in IT. The society is engaged in rehabilitating the orphans with a good family in India as well as abroad. 4. IT has been also stated that since 1978 about 600 children from the petitioners' organisation were adopted by many families in India and in IT. S. A. The parent organisation of I, M. H, (India) is incorporated in the State of Colorado, U. S. A. It has been stated that both the organisations are non-profit making and they are dedicated to the task of saving life and finding parents and homes for deserted and distressed orphan's and children without parents and homes. It has been stated in the petition that her organisation has been engaged in the work of taking care of the uncared for orphan babies and finding homes either in India or aborad. Adverse news were published against their activities in various papers including in the London paper which is a part of British News Agency Corporation known as "mail on Sunday" to the effect that this organisation was interested in selling babies abroad. The petitioner's passport and other papers were seized by the police and she was restrained from rawing outside Calcutta by an order dated 25th August, 1982. The matter was investigated closely and minutely by the CID, SIB., Calcutta Police, Enforcement Brranch (Finance) and others. After such investigation charges were refuted in the house of Parliament and the West Bengal Assembly and her passport and visa was returned to her by the Police. 5. IT has been further stated that the visa of petitioner no. 1 was last extended upto 27th August, 1982. Though the said visa was seized by the Officer of the Security Control Department, West Bengal on 25th August, 1982 yet it was returned to the petitioner on 5th September, 1982. Thereafter on 14th October. 1982 the petitioner no. 1 was served with a notice under Section 3 (2) (c) of the Foreigners Act 1946, whereby she was directed to leave India within 72 hours from the receipt of that notice. The petitioner on 15th October, 1982 moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before hon'ble Mr. Justice B. C. Basak who was pleased to direct the petition to appear as a Civil Order and an interim order of injunction restraining them from giving effect to the order for a limited period till the 29th October, 1982. The petitioner on 15th October, 1982 moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before hon'ble Mr. Justice B. C. Basak who was pleased to direct the petition to appear as a Civil Order and an interim order of injunction restraining them from giving effect to the order for a limited period till the 29th October, 1982. The petitioner however, left India before the expiry of that period. The petitioner on 30th October, 1982 arrived at Calcutta on the basis of single journey entry visa valid for 3 months stay issued at Bangkok. On 8th November, 1982 the petitioner No. 1 filed in an application for residential permit and/or for extension of her stay and sent the same through the petitioner No. 2 to the office of the deputy Commissioner of Police, security Control for submission of the same. That petitioner no. 2 however told the petitioner no. 1 that as her visa was up to 29th January, 1983 the application had to be filed about that time. Petitioner thereafter went regularly to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, security Control for the residential permit but same was not issued to her. On 14th Januarys 1983 the petitioner No. 1 again with her husband, petitioner no. 2 went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, security Control to submit the application for visa, when the petitioner no. 1 was interrogated for about 3 hours. The petitioner no. 1 replied to all the Questions put to her. Thereafter Mr. Banerjee who examined her told the petitioner, that she would be intimated after consulting the State Government as well as the Government of India in regard to extension of her stay. On 1st February, 1983 a letter was written to the petitioner asking her to get herself registered immediately. On 3rd February, 1983 the petitioner no. 1 went to the office of respondent No. 7 with an application for residential permit and the said application was accepted by the office and she was advised that her application would be processed duly. On that very date the Regional Registration officer, Security Control, Calcutta gave a residential permit permitting her to stay in India upto 29th January, 1983. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the said residential permit that the petitioner may apply at least 15 days before 29. 1. 1983 for extension of her permit. On that very date the Regional Registration officer, Security Control, Calcutta gave a residential permit permitting her to stay in India upto 29th January, 1983. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the said residential permit that the petitioner may apply at least 15 days before 29. 1. 1983 for extension of her permit. This has been annexed as annexure 'c' to the petition. 6. THE petitioner no. 1 determined to be a citizen of India since she had married the -petitioner no. 2 an Indian. She accordingly on 5th February, 1983 made an application in the prescribed form no. II of the Citizenship Rules for being registered as an Indian Citizen under section 5 (1) (c) of Indian Citizenship Act. A true copy of the said application has been annexed as Annexure 'd' to the writ application. As her application for extension of her stay was not considered and disposed of the petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and his; Lordship C. Mukherjee j. after hearing the petitioner no. 1 directed notice to be served upon the respondents and also directed that the matter would appear in the list as "application" on the next day. The learned judge was also pleased to pass an interim order restraining the respondents either from making or serving or giving effect to any order of deportation of your petitioner from India or to take any coercive measure against the petitioner with regard to her stay in India. This application (C.O.W. 1876 (W) of 1983) was disposed of on 16th march, 1983 by directing the Regional registration Order to dispose of in accordance with law by the appropriate officer the application of the petitioner no. 1 for extension of her stay within a fortnight -from that day. It has been further directed therein that if the petitioners' application for extension is not granted the petitioner would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, after 7 days from the date on which me order is communicated to her. 7. IT has been stated that on March 16, 1983 the petitioner No. 1 called on at the office of the Respondent No. 6 when she was served with two letters containing the aforesaid impugned orders rejecting her prayer for extension of Residential Permit as well as her application for grant of citizenship. 7. IT has been stated that on March 16, 1983 the petitioner No. 1 called on at the office of the Respondent No. 6 when she was served with two letters containing the aforesaid impugned orders rejecting her prayer for extension of Residential Permit as well as her application for grant of citizenship. Hence this instant application has been moved before this Hon'ble Court. 8. ON 23rd March, 1983 this Court directed he application to appear at the top four weeks hence. The petitioners were directed to serve copies of the petition on all the respondnts. An interim order was made in the meantime for maintaining status quo as on that day so far as the petitioner's stay in India was concerned. The petitioner also was directed not to leave Calcutta without previous intimation to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station where she resides and to the D. C. Security Control. An Affidavit-in-opposition sworn by one Shri Balkar Singh; respondent no. 7, Deputy Commissioner, Security control, Calcutta on the 29th of April, 1983 has been niect. In paragraph 4 of the said Affidavit it has been stated that the deponent disputed that the petitioner no. 1 has been engaged in any social or charitable work in India. It has been, further stated -that the petitioner no. 1 has set up an organisation with the big name and styled as "international Mission of Hope" whose business is to raise money in the U. S. A. and procure abandoned babies in Calcutta and dispatch those babies to the families in the U. S. A. There is no international society or charitable work associated with this rather clandestine business of the society. 9. IT has been further stated in paragraph 5 to 7 of the said affidavit that the petitioner no. 1 has been trying to hood wink people by high sounding words and naming respectable persons like mother Teressa has not connection with the petitioner no. 1. Petitioners' organisation is just a registered business organisation with clandestine aim for syphoning off helpless Indian Children to American families by circumventing the law of the land. It has been further stated that the petitioners' organisation As a tout organisation to hoodwink the courts and despatch the Indian babies to the U. S. A. camuflaging the issues involved. 1. Petitioners' organisation is just a registered business organisation with clandestine aim for syphoning off helpless Indian Children to American families by circumventing the law of the land. It has been further stated that the petitioners' organisation As a tout organisation to hoodwink the courts and despatch the Indian babies to the U. S. A. camuflaging the issues involved. It has been further stated that i. M. H. (India) possesses no licence even for the maintainance and upkeep of such home' for the deserted children as required by law. There is no law whatsoever in India which permits adoption of an Indian baby by a foreigner like the petitioner No. 1 or her countrymen in U. S. A; The State Government did not issue any licence for the I. M. H. (India) for maintenance of such a 'home'. It has been stated that there is absolutely no legal provisions under the laws of the lana under which I. M. it. (India) can adopt and arrange to adopt any Indian children. 10. THE petitioner is neither granted any Visa to continue her stay as a Foreigners here nor was entitled to Indian citizenship at ail. An Affidavit-in-reply has been tiled on behalf of the petitioner on 12th August, 1983 denying of the aforesaid allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition that the organisation of the petitioner no. 1 is a tout organisation to hoodwink the courts and dispatch the Indian babies in U. S. A. by circumventing the law of the land. It has also been denied that this organisation has been established with the clandestine aim of selling the Indian babies abroad in the families and finding homes for these helpless children in U. S. A. It has been stated that adoption of babies from one country by guardians or parents of other country is approved by international social organisation and it has the blessing of the United Nations. It is a part of the humanitarian programme undertaken by various international organisations including that of Mother Teressa, viz. Missionaries of Charity. 11. IT has been further stated that the respondent No. 7 Mr. Balkar Singh who is a public officer has altogether suppressed the fact that adoptions are being arranged on a wide scale by different organisations including the organisation of Mother Teressa. Mr. Missionaries of Charity. 11. IT has been further stated that the respondent No. 7 Mr. Balkar Singh who is a public officer has altogether suppressed the fact that adoptions are being arranged on a wide scale by different organisations including the organisation of Mother Teressa. Mr. Balkar Singh is the authority who has received the detail monthly reports carefully outing where the children come from and where it is going. The name and address of the guardian, passport details etc. are submitted by all organisations regularly to the office of respondent no. 7 furthermore the officials who are approving each and every application for passport are directly under him and without their approval no Indian baby could go out of Calcutta to join the family of the foreign guardian. 12. IT has been further stated that IMH (India) is an international Organisation conducting its affairs on a non-profit basis. It is run partly on donation and partly on the basis of reimbursement of expenses. Every year substantial amount in terms of tax free dollar was received by I. M. H (India) from the united States and every year such receipt of tax free dollars is required to be communicated to the Government of India and it is being communicated. Certificates to this fact that I. M. H (India) is a nonprofit corporation has been issued on August 30, 1977 by the Secretary of State: in the State of Colorado U. S. A. This has been, annexed as annexure 'o' to the affidavit-in-reply. Three supplementary affidavits have been sworn on behalf of the petitioners and these have been filed on 22nd august, 1983, 23rd August, 1983 and 23rd November, 1983 respectively. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavits filed on 22nd August, 1983 that before rejecting her application for extension of grant of residential permit as well as the application for Indian Citizenship, the authority did not serve upon the petitioner no. 1 any notice nor they did give her any opportunity of being heard or any opportunity to place the relevant facts in support of her claim for extension and citizenship. The petitioner no. 1 has been denied the benefit of the principles of natural justice and consequently orders under challenge cannot stand. 13. 1 any notice nor they did give her any opportunity of being heard or any opportunity to place the relevant facts in support of her claim for extension and citizenship. The petitioner no. 1 has been denied the benefit of the principles of natural justice and consequently orders under challenge cannot stand. 13. IT has been further stated in the supplementary affidavit filed on 23rd august, 1983 that the Chief Minister of west Bengal made a Statement in the assembly which had been published in satyajug on 25. 9. 82 to the effect that the state Government is not aware of any clandestine dispatch of babies from this place to abroad. A copy of this statement published in the Satyajug has been annexed as annexure 'a' to the said affidavit, it has been also stated in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 23rd November, 1983 that the petitioner, No. 1 submitted an application to the Director, Directorate of social Welfare, Government of West Bengal, Calcutta praying for issue of a licence to the registered society International Mission of Hope (India)to operate a Home and the said application was duly received by the authority concerned. But no intimation was sent uptil now by the authority as to whether this application was considered and disposed of. 14. AN Affidavit of facts on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 8 sworn by Balkar Singh, respondent No. 7, on 12th September, 1983 was filed. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit that from the records it appears that the petitioner Mrs. Clark did not make any application for extension of her residential permit except the application dated 8th of November, 1982 before the order of hon'ble Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee dated 4th November, 1982 was passed by the said order dated 16th March, 1983 the learned judge arrected that the application dated 8th November, 1982 should be disposed of It has also been stated that after the order of Mookerji, the petitioner No. 1 made another application in August 1983 for extension of her residential permit. That application has not yet been considered inasmuch as the matter is subjudice. It has been further stated that the petitioner no. That application has not yet been considered inasmuch as the matter is subjudice. It has been further stated that the petitioner no. 1 while staying in woodlands Nursing Home where she gave birth to a child by the petitioner No, 2 described herself as U. S. Christian and as such it has been stated that there was no valid marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 on 8th March, 1982. Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order dated 19th march, 1983 rejecting the application for grant of extension of stay in India is wholly arbitrary and also unreasonable as the petitioner no. 1 was not given any opportunity of being heard nor her application for extension of stay was fairly and properly considered before making the said order rejecting the application dated 8th November, 1982. It has been further submitted in this connection that the aforesaid order is also arbitrary in-, as much as it has been made not in accordance -with the direction contained in the order dated 16th March, 1983 passed in C.O. No. 1876 (W) of 1983 as her application for extension of her stay in India and for residential permit filed on 3rd February, 1983 was not at all considered and disposed of. Moreover the impugned order does not prima facie show the reasons for making the same. 15. IT has been submitted that the impugned order is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the order has been made arbitrarily and illegally without considering that the petitioner was not involved in any antinational or subversive activity affecting the security and integrity of the State. Nor there is any allegation that her stay in India and her activities here are objectionable from the national point of view. 16. IT has also been submitted in this connection that the petitioner no. 1 who is a foreign national is entitled to have her" application determined fairly and properly as required under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and this being not done the entire order is illegal and bad. Several decisions have been cited at the bar on this point. 1 who is a foreign national is entitled to have her" application determined fairly and properly as required under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and this being not done the entire order is illegal and bad. Several decisions have been cited at the bar on this point. It has also been submitted that the principle of natural justice applies to this case and the impugned order has been made in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before her application was rejected by the aforesaid order. The impugned order is wholly bad. It has been further submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as no reason was recorded for rejecting the petitioner's application for extension of stay filled on 8th November, 1983. The authority concerned did not comply with the order of the learned Judge in not disposing of her application filed on 3rd February, 1983. It has been submitted that ground that weighed with the authority concerned as appeared from the affidavit-in-opposition in rejecting the application of the petitioner for residential permit and for extension of her stay in India where wholly baseless and non-existent as the allegations against the petitioner that she was selling babies in U. S. A. by circumventing the law of the land was proved, to be false and baseless. It has also been submitted that. no reason has been mentioned in the impugned order rejecting her application for extension of residential permit. It has lastly been submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the order rejecting the petitioner no. 1's application for registration, as citizen is also illegal inasmuch as the petitioner fulfilled the requirements under section 5 (1) (c) of Citizenship Act 1955 read with Rule 4 (3) and explanation of the Citizenship Rules. 17. MR. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted in the first place that there was no other application filed by the petitioner for extension of her residential permit except the application dated 8th November, 1982. 17. MR. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted in the first place that there was no other application filed by the petitioner for extension of her residential permit except the application dated 8th November, 1982. It has been further submitted in this connection that this application dated 8th November, 1982 had been duly considered and disposed of on 19th March, 1983 in accordance with the direction contained in the judgment of Mookerji J. There has been no non-compliance with the order passed in C. O. No. 1876 (W) of 1983 and the decision being an administrative order the same cannot be challenged in this jurisdiction. 18. IT has been further submitted that the petitioner obtained a single journey entry visa in October, 1982 from Bangkok suppressing that the quit India order under section 3 (2) (c) of the Foreingers Act 1946, was already made against her. It has been further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the petitioner's organisation is engaged in clandestine business for syphoning off helpless Indian children to American families by circumventing the law of the land. As such the impugned order rejecting her application for extension of stay and or residential permit is a fair and proper order and there is no infirmity in the said order. It has been further submitted that the order rejecting the petitioner's application for Registration as a Citizen has been properly made as the petitioner does not comply with the requirements provided in Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act 1955 read with Rule 4 (3) of the Citizenship Rules. It has been lastly submitted that the petitioner No. 1 being not a citizen but a foreigner is not entitled to claim any Fundamental Right including any right under Article 14 of the Constitution. The instant application, it has been submitted, is liable to be rejected. 19. BEFORE proceeding to consider the respective contentions advanced by the learned Advocates on behalf of the parties it is necessary to consider the relevant provision of the Foreigners Act 1946 as well as the Foreigners Order 1948 and the Registration of Foreigners rules 1934. Section 3 of the Foreigners act provides that the Central Government may make an order providing for prohibiting, regulating restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein. Section 3 of the Foreigners act provides that the Central Government may make an order providing for prohibiting, regulating restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein. Paragraph 7 (1) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 laid down that every foreigner who entered India on the authority of a Visa issued in pursuance of the Indian Passport Act shall obtain from the Registration Officer having jurisdiction either at the place at which he enters India or at the place at which he presents a registration report a permit in accordance with Rule 6 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939 indicating the period of his stay in India and also indicating the places or place for stay in India if any, specified in the Visa., ; 20. IT has been further provided in sub paragraph 3 (iii) of paragraph 7 that every foreigner to whom a permit has been issued under Sub Paragraph (i) or Sub Paragraph 2 of paragraph 7 shall unless the period indicated in the permit is extended by the Central Government depart from India before expiry of the said period and at the time of departure from India the permit shall be surrendered by him to the Registration Officer having jurisdiction at the place from where he departs. In the instant case the petitioner who is a citizen of U. S. A. came to India admittedly on the Single Journey Entry Visa No. 6288)82 dated 29th October, 1982 and this Visa was valid for 3 months stay and issued at, Bangkok. The petitioner after coming to calcutta on 30th October, 1982 stayed for some time and filled in a Form for residential permit on 8th November 1982 and handed over the same to her husband, the petitioner no. 2, who went to the Office of Deputy Commissioner, security Control for submission of the same. The petitioner no. 2 reported to the petitioner no. 1 that her visa was upto 29th January, 1983 and so the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Security Control advised him to submit the application on or about the same time. It has been further stated in paragraph 22 of the petition that on 14th January, 1983 the petitioner no. 1 with the petitioner no. 2 went to the office of the Deputy commissioner, Security Control, respondent no. 7, to submit the application for visa. It has been further stated in paragraph 22 of the petition that on 14th January, 1983 the petitioner no. 1 with the petitioner no. 2 went to the office of the Deputy commissioner, Security Control, respondent no. 7, to submit the application for visa. At that time one gentleman known as Mr. Banerjee interrogated the petitioner no. 1 for about 3 hours. Thereafter Mr. Banerjee, the officer of the said office, told the petitioner that she would be intimated about the extension of her permit later on. It has been stated that thereafter either the petitioner no. 1 or the petitioner no. 2 had been going to the office of the respondent No. 7 every day. Only on 1st February, 1983 Mr. Banerjee wrote to petitioner No. 1 to get herself registered immediately. Accordingly on 3rd February, 1983 the petitioner no. 1 went to the office of the respondent No. 7 with an application for residential permit and the same was accepted by the office. She was told that her application would be duly processed. To her utter surprise on 3rd February, 1983 the petitioner no. 1 received the residential permit, upto 29.1.83. The petitioner thereafter moved a writ application in C. O. No. 1876 (W) of 1983 which was disposed of by directing the authority concerned to dispose of her application for extension of residential permit within 7 days. The impugned order was made disposing of the petitioner's application dated 8th November, 1983 and not the application filed by the petitioner on 3rd of February, 1983. It has been tried to be submitted on behalf of the respondent that no such application was filed in the office of the respondent no. 7 and the only application that she filed for residential permit was dated 8th November, 1982. It appears from the averments made, in the writ petition in C.O. No. 1876 (W) of 1983 that the petitioner went on 3rd February, 11983 to the office of respondent no. 7 with an application for residential permit and the said application was accepted by the office and the petitioner was told that the application would be duly processed. This statement in paragraph 26 of the writ petition was not denied by the respondent as no affidavit has been filed, in that case. 7 with an application for residential permit and the said application was accepted by the office and the petitioner was told that the application would be duly processed. This statement in paragraph 26 of the writ petition was not denied by the respondent as no affidavit has been filed, in that case. Similarly statement Ms been made in paragraph 23 of the instant writ application and this has been affirmed as, true to knowledge of the deponent i. e. the petitioner No. 1. In the affidavit-in-opposition sworn on 29th April, 1983 by respondent no. 7 Balkar Singh, the averments of paragraph 23 have not at all been controverted. It was merely stated that the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 for continued stay in India is illegal and against the spirit of Foreigners Laws of India. This averment has been made in paragraph 16 of the said Affidavit, which has been affirmed as derived from the records and the deponent believes same to be true. On 12th September 1983 an affidavit of facts sworn by Balkar Singh, respondent no. 7 has been filed. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit that from the records it appears that the petitioner no. 1 did not make any application for extension of residential permit except the application dated 8th November 1982 before the order of Mr. Justice Mookherjee dated 16th March, 1983 was passed and this has been affirmed as based on information derived from the records. 21. IN these circumstances it is very difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Chatterjee learned advocate for the State respondents that except the application dated 8th November, 1982 no other application for extension of residential permit was filed in the office of the respondent no. 7. Inasmuch as the learned judge while disposing of the application in C. O. No. 1876 (W) of 1983 directed the consideration of the pending application filed by the petitioner no. 1 for extension of her residential permit on 3rd February, 1983. Therefore the impugned order can not be treated as an order passed in accordance with the directions contained in the order made by C. Mookerji J. in C. O. No. 1976 (W) of 1983. 1 for extension of her residential permit on 3rd February, 1983. Therefore the impugned order can not be treated as an order passed in accordance with the directions contained in the order made by C. Mookerji J. in C. O. No. 1976 (W) of 1983. It is also pertinent to mention in this connection that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application dated 8th November, 1982 for extension of stay in India does not contain any reasons whatsoever. It has been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents by referring to the decision in 1969 1 All E. t. R. 904 Schmidt and another vs. Secretary of State for Home Affirms that the order in question is an executive order and there is no necessity of recording any reason in the order and a foreigner having no right to question of principle of natural justice arises. In the aforesaid case it was held that an alien had no right to enter in the U. K. without leave and having entered to have the time extended and can be refused permission to remain without reason being given; accordingly an alien having no right capable of being interfered with no question of natural justice arose by refusing to grant extension of her stay. It was also held that the Home Secretary who had ample power under the Aliens 'order, j. 963 to refuse admission to aliens or to refuse to extend their stay had not exercised his powers Arbitrarily but fairly and validly. in the interest of the Society. Undoubtedly the officer has been vested with the discretion either to extend or not to extend the stay of the petitioner by granting residential permit; but the discretion is to be exercised fairly and properly and not arbitrarily as has been held in (1970) 2 All E. R. 526 at 533 R. V. Gaming Board for Great Britan Exparte Benaim and another. In this case it has been also held that the principle of natural justice will apply not only to judicial proceeding but to administrative proceeding also and the: authorities in making an order under the Commonwealth Immigration Act, 1962 must act fairly and reasonably. Of course he is not required to give elaborate reasons for the order made by him. The decision cited by Mr. Chatterjee in. Of course he is not required to give elaborate reasons for the order made by him. The decision cited by Mr. Chatterjee in. 1969 All E. L. R. page 904 (Supra) does: not apply to this case because in that; case the Home Secretary had been conferred power in that Aliens Order 1953 to refuse to extend their stay. This is not the case here. 22. MOREOVER Article 14 of the Constitution which mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws will be available to all persons within the territory of India. Therefore the right conferred by Article 14 is; not confined to the citizens only but it-is also available to any "person within the territory of India. This has been held in Basheshar v. Commr. of I.T. AIR 1959 S. C. 149 at page 157. This has: been followed and relied upon in the subsequent decision made in the case of vincent Ferrer v. District Revenue officer, Anantpur, AIR 1974 Andhra Pradesh 313 at 314 paras 3 and 4 where it has been held that the order under Clause 11 of the Foreigners Order was made arbitrarily by the authority concerned without applying its mind whether it was necessary to make the order and the order impugned was quashed. In the instant case there is no allegation that the petitioner is engaged in any political activities or in any objectional activities. The allegations that she was engaged in the clandestine aim for syphoning off helpless Indian children in foreign countries and selling them aborad was not at all proved. It appears that the impugned order was made rejecting her application for residential permit on this ground but from the various certificates including certificate given by the Prime Minister of India, the statement of the Chief Minister of West Bengal in the Legislative Assembly as published in the newspaper as well as the release of the passport and visa of the petitioner no. 1 after holding investigation into these allegations by police authority that those allegation were found to be baseless and incorrect. It is entirely for the State Government to determine whether the petitioner No. 1 who is a Foreigner and whether she should be permitted extension of her stay in this country and she should be issued the residential permit for that purposes. It is entirely for the State Government to determine whether the petitioner No. 1 who is a Foreigner and whether she should be permitted extension of her stay in this country and she should be issued the residential permit for that purposes. But at the same time Rule of Law by which, our policy is governed mandates that while exercising that power fair play in action and the reasonableness have to be observed. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observations of A. N. Ray c, J. in the case of Daud Mohammad v. District Magistrate Allahabad, A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 896 at 898 para 12. It has been observed that the application of the audit alteram partem to the exercise of any statutory power depends primarily on the purpose and provisions of the Act. One of the purposes of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice. The principle of natural justice is applicable to administrative enquiries or quasi judicial enquires. It is the nature of the power and the circumstances and conditiccns under which it is exercised that will occasion the invocation of the principles of natural justice. 23. IT has been observed by Bhagwati J, that from a positivist point of view equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, one belongs to the rule of Law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implict in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional laws and is therefore violative of Article: 14. This has been followed in Maneka Gandhi's case, a. I. R. 1978 S. C. 597. 24. I have already stated therein before that the petitioner's application filed on 3rd February, 1983 has not yet been, disposed of though the same was directed to be disposed of by this Court. Therefore, the authority concerned are required to dispose of the said application filed by the petitioner on 3rd February, 1983 as evident from the averments made in paragraph 23 of the petition in accordance with the directions made by this Court in C. O. 1876 (W) of 1983.It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Chatterjee that the petitioner was heard on 14th January,1983 by one Mr. Chatterjee that the petitioner was heard on 14th January,1983 by one Mr. Banerjee and as such the impugned order that has been made after giving petitioner no. 1 an opportunity ox being heard cannot be challenged as made in violation of principle of natural justice. 25. MR. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner specifically prayed before this court for a direction upon the authority concerned to produce the relevant papers viz. the report that has been submitted by Mr. Banerjee after interrogation of the petitioner no. 1. Mr. Chatterjee submitted in open Court that his client will not produce the said report before this Court. Therefore, the non-production of the said report before this court goes against the respondent's contention that the petitioner was given a hearing by the respondent no. 7 and on the other hand it goes to establish the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity being heard was given to the petitioner no. 1 before her application dated 8th November, 1982 for extension of her stay was rejected by the impugned order. 26. I have already held hereinbefore that the averments made in affidavit-in-opposition sworn by respondent no. 7 stating the grounds in consideration of which the petitioner no. l's application for extension of her stay was rejected are wholly baseless and wrong and the order as such has not been made fairly but arbitrarily. This order, therefore, cannot be sustained. As regard the order that has been made rejecting the application made by the petitioner no. 1 on 5th February, 1983 for her registration as citizen under section 5 (1) (c) of Citizenship Act, 1955 read with Rule 4 (3) of Citizenship rules, 1956 it has been tried to be contended that the said order was not made in due consideration of the explanation to sub rule 3 of Rule 4 which provides for taking into consideration of broken period of residence and service under Clause (a) and (b) in computing the period of one year. It has been submitted by Mr. It has been submitted by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee that the petitioner resided in India for about 485 days counting the period of her residence during the broken period of her stay in India from 26th November, 1983 to 3rd October, 1982 i.e. the period immediately proceeding the filling of her application for registration and he refers in this connection to the pleading made in paragraph 40 of the writ petition. It has been submitted that the petitioner's application for registration as a citizen cannot be rejected on the ground that she does not fulfil the requirements of Rule 4 (3) of Citizenship rules that she did not reside in India for one year before making the application for registration as a citizen of India. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that if the explanation to Rule 4 (3) is considered as meaning that in computing the period of one year the broken period of residence and service' under clauses (a) and (b) of sub rule 3 of Rule 4 will be taken together then it will convey no sense inasmuch as according to Mr. Mukherjee the person who is in the service of a Government in India has to reside in India and so the question of tagging this period with the period of actually residing in India not being in service of a Government in India does not arise because during the whole period he resides in India. It has been submitted that the broken periods of residence and service refers to either broken period of residence in India or broken period of service of a Government in India. Rule 4 however, prescribed that the application for registration under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship act has to be filed in Form No. II and item No. 8 has specifically provided that the applicant has either resided in India or has been in the service of a Government in India or partly the one and partly the other throughout the period of 12 months immediately proceeding the date of application. On a consideration of this paragraph 8 of Form No. II as well as the provisions of Rule 4 Sub rule 3 Clauses (a) and (b) and the explanation thereto, it appears quite clear that the foreigner i.e. the petitioner no. On a consideration of this paragraph 8 of Form No. II as well as the provisions of Rule 4 Sub rule 3 Clauses (a) and (b) and the explanation thereto, it appears quite clear that the foreigner i.e. the petitioner no. 1 who has filed the application under Sec. 5 (1) (c) of the said Act did not to reside in India for a period of one year before the date of application as she was never in the service of a Government in India before filling of the application. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in my opinion, cannot be accepted in view of the express provision, of the Rule 4 (3) read with explanation to sub Rule 3 of Rule 4 of the Citizenship Rules 1956. Therefore the impugned order dated March 19, 1983 rejecting the application of petitioner no. 1 for citizenship on the grounds stated therein is not illegal or arbitrary but the same is a valid and proper order made in accordance with the law. 27. REFERENCE has been made by Mr. Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Advocate for the union of India to AIR. 1955 S. C. 376 at 372 para 23 Hans Mutter v. Superintendent Presidency Jail, Calcutta where it has been held that Section 3 (1) (b) of preventive Detention Act 1950 (Act 4 of 1950) conferred wide discretion on the Central Government to determine whether it is necessary to make an order for expulsion of the Foreigner and for this purpose to make an order of detention of the foreigner till such arrangement for expulsion, is made. I have already held that the prescribed authority has fairly considered the application for registration as a citizen filed by the petitioner No. 1 and he rejected the same as she has not fulfilled the requirements of Section 5 (1) (c) read with rule 4 (3) (a) and (b) and explanation thereto of Citizenship Rules, 1956. The decision in Abdul Kalim vs. S.D.O. Katwa, A.I.R. 1965 Cal. 160 at 161 paragraph 2 is of no help to the petitioner in view of my finding that impugned order rejecting the application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is neither illegal nor arbitrary. 28. FOR the reasons aforesaid the application is allowed in part. The decision in Abdul Kalim vs. S.D.O. Katwa, A.I.R. 1965 Cal. 160 at 161 paragraph 2 is of no help to the petitioner in view of my finding that impugned order rejecting the application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is neither illegal nor arbitrary. 28. FOR the reasons aforesaid the application is allowed in part. Let a Writ of certiorari issue quashing and cancelling the impugned order dated March 9, 1983 made by the government of West Bengal rejecting the application for grant of extension of stay as mentioned in Annexure 'e' to the petitioner. Let a writ of Mandamus issue commanding the respondent to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for grant of extension of her stay filed on 3rd February, 1983 in accordance with law, as early possible after giving the petitioner No, 1 an opportunity of being heard. The application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute