Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the 1st Respondent in Letter No.26013/173/2005 ICII dt.25.04.2006 and direct the 1st Respondent to grant Indian Citizenship in favour of the Petitioner under Sec.5(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 2. The Petitioner Mukesh Kumar Ravin, a Singapore National has submitted the Citizenship Application along with 11 supportive relevant documents in triplicate for grant of Indian Citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the said Act on 15.05.2002. Petitioners application was accepted by the office of the Collector, Chennai on 15.05.2002. Petitioners application has been forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8 by Collector, Chennai in file No.P2/26439/2002 dated 01.08.2002 for enquiry and report. 3. Collector of Chennai, has forwarded the Citizenship application of the Petitioner with relevant documents to the State Government on 112. 2003. The Government has called for details of visits in abroad and reasons for not extending Petitioners Residential permit beyond 20.06.2002 and not renewing the Singapore passport beyond 31.01.2003. Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.02.2006, and the same has been forwarded to the State Government on 13.02.2006 and the same has been forwarded to the Central Government. The 1st Respondent by the impugned letter No.26013/173/05/IC.II, dated 25.04.2006, has informed that the Petitioners request for grant of Indian Citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act cannot be considered which is the subject matter in this writ petition. 4. 2nd Respondent-Government of Tamil Nadu filed counter contending that the Government have duly forwarded the application with relevant documents to the 1st Respondent, the State Government acted in accordance with rules. It is further averred that to obtain Indian Citizenship under 5 (1) (a) of Citizenship Act, the Petitioner has to produce the renewed Residential permit and therefore direction of Ministry of India to the State Government is in accordance with the Act and the Rules and there is no merit in the writ petition. 5. Drawing Courts attention to typed set of papers, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. C.S. Prakas Rao, contended that Petitioners father is Indian National by descent and therefore under Sec.4(1) of the Act Petitioner is entitled for Citizenship. 5. Drawing Courts attention to typed set of papers, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. C.S. Prakas Rao, contended that Petitioners father is Indian National by descent and therefore under Sec.4(1) of the Act Petitioner is entitled for Citizenship. Drawing courts attention to letter dated 28.03.2006, from the Government of Tamil Nadu to the Ministry of India the learned counsel contended that State Government mistakenly stated the Petitioner as "Srilankan National" which seems to have substantially weighed with the Central Government to reject the Petitioners request for grant of Citizenship. Learned counsel further contended that there is non application of mind by the Respondents and suitable direction has to be issued to the Respondents for grant of Citizenship to the Petitioner. 6. Onbehalf of the 2nd Respondent, the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. N. senthilkumar has submitted that since the Petitioner has not renewed Residential permit his Citizenship under Sec.5(1)(a) was not considered. It was further argued that the Petitioner has submitted his application at the last moment i.e. one month before the expiry of his Residential permit and therefore the Respondents cannot be faulted for not granting Citizenship to the Petitioner. 7. Petitioner was born in 1982, in Singapore. His father Mukesh Kumar is a citizen of India by birth and till date Petitioners father is a citizen of India. Petitioners mother was born in Singapore and the Petitioner was also born in Singapore. Though Petitioner was Singapore National, petitioner was educated at Madras and he studied B.Com in Loyola College, Chennai. Petitioner applied to the Collector of Chennai for registration as an Indian Citizen under Sec.5 of the Citizenship Act. At that relevant time Petitioner had valid Residential permit upto 30.02.2002 and valid Singapore passport upto January 2003. After verifying the records, by letter dated 02.05.2005, 2nd Respondent forwarded the Petitioners application to the Government of India under Sec.5(1) of the Act. Thereafter, Central Government called for certain particulars and again the Petitioners application was forwarded by the State Government in which it was wrongly stated that the Petitioner was a Srilankan National. By the impugned letter dated 25.04.2006, Central Government declined Petitioners request for the grant of Indian Citizenship under Sec.5(1) of the Act. 8. Thereafter, Central Government called for certain particulars and again the Petitioners application was forwarded by the State Government in which it was wrongly stated that the Petitioner was a Srilankan National. By the impugned letter dated 25.04.2006, Central Government declined Petitioners request for the grant of Indian Citizenship under Sec.5(1) of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is entitled to Citizenship by descent under Sec.4(1) of the Act and while so the Respondents are not justified in declining to grant Citizenship to the Petitioner. Main contention of Petitioner is that his father being Indian Citizen Petitioner is entitled to become Indian Citizen under Sec.4(1) of the Act. 9. Petitioner has also surrendered his Singapore passport and have also not extended his Residential permit. On behalf of the Petitioner it was mainly contended that the Petitioner is entitled to Citizenship by descent under Sec.4(1) of the Act. 4(1) of the Act reads as follows: "4. Citizenship by descent:-(1) A person born outside India shall be a citizen of India by descent, .(a) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but before the 10th day of December, 1992, if his father is a citizen of India at the time of his birth; or .(b) on or after the 10th day of December, 1992, if either of his parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth:" 10. Under Sec.4(1) to become Citizenship by descent, as per Proviso to Sec.4(1) the following conditions are to be satisfied. The Proviso to Sec.4(1) reads as under: "Provided that if the father of a person referred to in clause (a) was a citizen of India by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of India by virtue of this section unless- .(a) his birth is registered at an Indian consulate within one year of its occurrence or the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, or, with the permission of the Central Government, after the expiry of said period; or .(b) his father is, at the time of his birth, in service under a Government in India;" 11. By combined reading of Sec.4(1) along with Proviso, it is clear that a person born outside India shall be a Citizen of India by descent only if his birth is registered at an Indian Consulate as stipulated under the Proviso. By combined reading of Sec.4(1) along with Proviso, it is clear that a person born outside India shall be a Citizen of India by descent only if his birth is registered at an Indian Consulate as stipulated under the Proviso. Petitioners father was a Indian by birth. 12. Onbehalf of Petitioner it was mainly contended that Petitioner being child of Indian Citizen born in Singapore would be a Citizen of India by descent. As per proviso a person born outside India would become Indian Citizen by descent only, if his birth was registered at the Indian Consulate as stipulated in the Proviso. It is not the case of Petitioner that his birth was registered at Indian Consulate within one year of his birth or the commencement of the Act. 13. As such the Petitioner has rightly applied for Citizenship by registering under Sec.5 of the Act. Sec.5 of the Act reads as under: 5. Citizenship by registration.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and such other conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the Central Government may, on an application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person not being an illegal migrant who is not already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or of any other provision of this Act if he belongs to any of the following categories, namely:- .(a) a person of India origin who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration; .(b) a person of full age and capacity who, or either of his parents, was earlier citizen of independent India, and has been residing in India for one year immediately before making an application for registration. Petitioners father being Indian National, petitioner can only claim Citizenship by registration as contemplated under Sec.5(1)(f) of the Act. 14. Petitioner was born to an Indian Citizen in Singapore and the Petitioner acquired Singapore Citizenship because he was born there. However, the Petitioner had undergone his education in India, settled in India and had applied for Indian Citizenship. Infact the Petitioner had also surrendered his Singapore passport. Having regard to the facts and circumstance, Government of Tamil Nadu had forwarded Petitioners application by the letter No.579 dated 11.07.2005 to the Central Government stating that State Government has no objection to the Petitioner being registered as Indian Citizen under Sec.5(1)(a) of the Act. 15. Infact the Petitioner had also surrendered his Singapore passport. Having regard to the facts and circumstance, Government of Tamil Nadu had forwarded Petitioners application by the letter No.579 dated 11.07.2005 to the Central Government stating that State Government has no objection to the Petitioner being registered as Indian Citizen under Sec.5(1)(a) of the Act. 15. In response to the State Government letter, the 1st Respondent had called for further details about the Petitioner visits abroad, return visas or exit visas. The Petitioner had resubmitted his application along with called for particulars. In his letter dated 02.02.2006, petitioner has clearly stated that in order to become Citizen of India under Sec.4(1) of the Act, he has renounced his Singapore passport by not extending the validity beyond 31.01.2003. For the same reason Petitioner has also not extended his Residential permit beyond 20.05.2002. 16. While forwarding the application of Petitioner (dated 02.02.2006), the State Government in its letter No.106374/Citz.I/2005-2 dated 28.03.2006, has mistakenly stated that Petitioner is a Srilankan National and that the Petitioner had given his details of visits to abroad. That inadvertent mistake in the said letter seems to have substantially weighed with the Central Government for declining Citizenship to the Petitioner. Infact the Central Government had also not sought for any clarification regarding inadvertent mistake crept in the said letter. The reasons stated by the 1st Respondent for not considering the request of the Petitioner is not convincing. 17. As pointed out earlier in the letter dated 11.07.2005, State Government recommended the case of the Petitioner stating that State Government have no objection to the Petitioner being registered as Indian Citizen under Sec.5(1)(a) of the Act. While so the 1st Respondent was not justified in rejecting the request of the Petitioner for grant of Citizenship. 18. In the result the impugned letter No.26013/173/05/IC.II dated 25.04.2006, is quashed and this writ petition is allowed. The 1st Respondent is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner and grant Citizenship under Sec.5(1)(a) and (f) of the Citizenship Act. The 1st Respondent shall pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the application.