Kerala High Court
Bianka Thomas vs Union Of India on 16 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 38703 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
BIANKA THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O THOMAS MATHEW,
R/O 14, EFFERNOCK AVENUE, TRIM, CO MEATH, IRELAND,
C15WD1R,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR THOMAS MATHEW,AGED 59 S/O MATHEW, R/O PUTHETTU,
MANATHOOR, PIZHAKU, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA.,
PIN - 686651
BY ADVS.
JOSE ABRAHAM
E.ADITHYAN
MURALEEDHARAN R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE SECRETARY (CPV & OIA), MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PATIALA HOUSE ANNEX,
TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADV
SMT. MINI GOPINATH - CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 38703/23
2
JUDGMENT
Even though various assertions, averments and allegations are
made and urged in this Writ Petition, when this matter was called
today, the petitioner confined her plea that the competent Authority
of the 1st respondent be directed to take up Ext.P5 Revision preferred
by her under Section 15 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and dispose it
of, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. In response to the afore submissions made by Sri.Jose
Abraham - learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.Girish Kumar -
learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that if this Court is
only inclined to direct Ext.P5 to be taken up and disposed of, there
does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so; but prayed
that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations on her
entitlement to any relief and leave it to the competent Authority to
take a final decision as per law.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct
the competent Authority of the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P5
Revision of the petitioner and to dispose of the same, after affording
her an opportunity of being heard - either physically or online; thus
culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I clarify that I have not entered into the merits of any of the
rival contentions, including on the maintainability of Ext.P5 before
the 1st respondent and that they are all left open to be considered
appropriately when the afore exercise is completed.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38703/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit - P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED
3RD OCTOBER 2023 EXECUTED IN BY THE
PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF HER FATHER
Exhibit -P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE FLIGHT TICKETS FROM
DUBLIN TO KOCHI AND BACK TO DUBLIN
Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL FORWARDED TO THE
RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 2ND
AUGUST 2023
Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FORWARDED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 3RD
AUGUST 2023
Exhibit -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE
CITIZENSHIP ACT FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
OCI CARD APPLICATION DATED 30-9-2023
