Mahvish Farooq v. Anil Malik & Ors.

1. None appears on behalf of petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for respondents, however, submits that the contempt petition does not survive anymore.

3. The petitioner has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for wilful violation of order dated 22.07.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7813/2019.

4. The petitioner had filed the abovesaid writ petition praying for directions to respondents to consider her application for being registered as a citizen of India and, accordingly, for grant of Indian citizenship in accordance with law.

5. While disposing of the abovesaid writ petition, the respondents were directed to process the abovesaid application in accordance with law. CONT.CAS(C) 92/2020 2

6. The present contempt petition has been filed for the reason that despite there being abovesaid direction, there is no decision and the period of more than six months has already elapsed.

7. On previous occasions, though the status reports were furnished by respondent, it has now been informed that the Government of India has already taken a decision with respect to her such request. It is stated that the request of petitioner for grant of Indian citizenship has not been acceded to by the Competent Authority.

8. Such order of rejection is stated to be of 16.02.2024.

9. According to learned counsel for respondent, it is a reasoned order as the specific reasons for rejecting the request are mentioned therein.

10. It is also informed that copy of such decision was even forwarded to the concerned petitioner.

11. A communication sent by Under Secretary, Government of India to Central Government Standing Counsel has been shown which has the requisite enclosures. Such set is taken on record.

12. Learned counsel for respondent also undertakes that the complete set thereof shall be forwarded to learned counsel for petitioner within two days from today.

13. It is also important to note that when the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 22.07.2019, the Court had not given any time-frame as such and there was mere direction to respondent to process the application in accordance with law.

14. Though, the disposal of the application should have been very quick, fact remains that the decision has now been taken, albeit belatedly. In view of the abovesaid significant development in the matter, nothing further survives CONT.CAS(C) 92/2020 3 in the present contempt petition and, therefore, the present contempt petition stands disposed of in view of foregoing discussion.

15. Needless to say, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the abovesaid rejection, it is always open to her to take recourse to remedy, as permissible under law.