JUDGMENT : Valmiki Menezes, J. Heard Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Senior Advocate, Mr Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Pravin Faldessai, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents. 2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition heard finally. 3. By this petition, the petitioner invokes our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and throws a challenge to the communication dated 06.06.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 (FRRO), recording therein that the petitioner's application for grant of Overseas Citizen of India Card (OCI Card), under the Citizenship Act, 1955 is cancelled under Rule 32(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. The two main contentions raised by the Petitioner, on the basis of which he urges that the impugned communication requires to be quashed are : (a) That the Respondent No.2 has acted without and/or in excess of power, authority and jurisdiction, and in contravention to the provisions of Section 7A of The Citizenship Act, 1955 (The Act) and Rules 29 to 32 of The Citizenship Rules, 2009; and (b) That the Respondent No.2 has erred in applying the provisions of Rule 32(2) of the Rules, which, in any event, does not empower Respondent No.2 with the authority to cancel an application for an OCI Card. The impugned communication/order suffers from a lack of jurisdiction and being a non-speaking order, without assigning reasons for cancellation of the application, is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Countering the submissions of the Petitioner, the Respondents contend that under the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Cardholder scheme, the Respondents follow the procedure laid down in clause 21.2 and 21.3 of the Manual used by the Department; it is submitted that in terms of clause 21.3 of the Manual, the procedure for granting registration as OCI Cardholder, permits the FRRO to grant or reject such application, and it is only in cases where there is adverse information against the applicant after preliminary scrutiny by the FRRO, that prior approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs would be required before grant of registration. It was further contended that in all other cases, if during the verification, any adverse information comes to the knowledge of the FRRO, the FRRO is empowered to reject the application. It was further contended that in all other cases, if during the verification, any adverse information comes to the knowledge of the FRRO, the FRRO is empowered to reject the application. The Respondents rely upon the extract of Chapter 21 from the said Manual dealing with OCI Cardholder Scheme. 5. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel on the aforementioned two grounds. Section 7A of the Act empowers the Central Government, subject to certain conditions and restrictions, to register a person specified under clause (a) to (c) of Sub-section 1 thereof, as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Section 7A, in terms of the power conferred under Section 18 of the Act to make rules, the Central Government has enacted Rules 29 to 35 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. Under Rule 29, an application for registration of an OCI cardholder shall be made in Form XXVII, if the person applies for the same in India, to any of the authorities specified in sub-clauses (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of Rule 31, and if such person were to apply for an OCI Card outside India, then the application shall be made to one of the two authorities mentioned under sub-clauses (i) or (ii) of clause (b) of Section 31. 6. After receipt of the application, it is the Central Government who is required to, in terms of sub-rule 1 of Rule 32 to make a preliminary inquiry on the application and scrutinize the same, and on being satisfied that there is no adverse information available against the applicant, register the applicant as an OCI cardholder, not later than a period of 30 days from the receipt of the application. Under sub-rule 2 of Rule 32, the Central Government, may, in case of any adverse information against the applicant, make further inquiry as it considers necessary and thereafter approve or reject the ground for registration. Thus, the authority specified under Section 7A and Rule 32 of the Rules, for taking a decision as to whether to grant or to reject an application of conferment of an OCI Card is the Central Government. Thus, the authority specified under Section 7A and Rule 32 of the Rules, for taking a decision as to whether to grant or to reject an application of conferment of an OCI Card is the Central Government. Under Section 16 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to delegate, by a specific order any of the powers conferred on it, including the powers to grant an OCI Card under Section 7A, to be exercised by such officer or authority that it may specify. 7. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the Petitioner has applied for an OCI Card under Section 7A, in India to the authority who receives the application, in this case, to the FRRO (Respondent No.2) at Mumbai. The FRRO is not the authority conferred with the power by the Central government or an authority under Section 32 or a delegate of the Central Government in terms of Section 16 to conduct the preliminary inquiry or take a decision to reject the application or confer an OCI Card. 8. The impugned communication issued by the Respondent No.2 stating that Petitioner's OCI application stood cancelled in terms of sub-rule 2 of Rule 32 is clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 7A and Rule 32 of the Rules as the FRRO is neither a delegate nor acting as a Central Government under powers conferred on the Central Government in terms of these provisions. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 32 empowers only the Central Government to take a decision, including one where adverse information is reported against the applicant. It is only the Central Government who is empowered to conduct such inquiry against the applicant on his request for an OCI Card and none else. In that view of the matter, the Respondent no.2 FRRO, Mumbai has clearly acted without the jurisdiction conferred upon it in terms of Section 7A and Rule 32, not being conferred the power to scrutinize and decide an application for OCI Card. It is only the Central Government that is so empowered, and the impugned decision, on its face does not appear to have been taken by the Central Government. It is only the Central Government that is so empowered, and the impugned decision, on its face does not appear to have been taken by the Central Government. On perusing the OCI Cardholder Scheme contained in Chapter 21 of the Manual referred to by the Respondents, we find that the procedure provided in clause 21.3 is perfectly in consonance with the provisions of Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 32 of the Citizenship Rules. In fact, sub-clause 1 of clause 21.3 of the Manual specifically provides that where there is an adverse information against the applicant after preliminary scrutiny by the FRRO concerned, prior approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs shall be required before grant of registration. It is further provided therein that the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is the "Central Government" referred to in Rule 32, that may approve or reject the grant of registration, and if such approval is granted, the concerned FRRO shall register the applicant as a OCI Cardholder. Clause 21.3 in no manner empowers the FRRO to reject the application for registration of OCI, when there is an adverse information or for any other adverse reason. That power is solely within the domain of the Central Government/Ministry of Home Affairs under Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 32. 9. Rule 32 postulates two situations; the first being where the Central Government holds a preliminary inquiry and on being satisfied that there is no adverse information available against the applicant, registers him as an OCI. The second situation contemplated by this Rule is where the Central Government may come across some adverse information against the applicant, pursuant to which it is empowered to make such inquiry as it considers necessary and then approve or reject the grant of the registration. It stands to reason that where the Central Government rejects the application, it would do so by a reasoned order, bringing to the notice of the applicant, the material constituting adverse information against him. In the present case, the impugned communication does not cite any reasons for rejection nor refers to the adverse material against the petitioner, enabling him to participate in an inquiry to explain such adverse information. In the present case, the impugned communication does not cite any reasons for rejection nor refers to the adverse material against the petitioner, enabling him to participate in an inquiry to explain such adverse information. Notwithstanding the fact that the impugned communication rejecting the OCI application is issued by an authority without jurisdiction, the order itself cites no reasons or refers to material which constitutes the adverse information against the applicant. This would be an additional ground to set aside the impugned communication. 10. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 06.06.2024, deserves to be quashed and set aside. In terms of the mandate of Rule 32 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, the Central Government/Respondent No.1 would be required to take a decision on the Petitioner's application for OCI Card within a period of 30 days from the communication of this order. 11. For the reasons stated above, we allow this Petition and make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) of the Petition. The Central Government is hereby directed to consider the application of the Petitioner for grant of OCI Card within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order and pass a fresh order thereon in terms of Rule 32 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. No costs.