I ~ v. Venk~;es:~rnn, that item 45(3) was int~nded to apply to fountain·

any opinion on these contentions. In any event, under The state of cl. (a) of sub-section (2) of s.10 a citizen can be depriv- Rajasthan ed of his citizenship only if it is proved that the regis- tration was obtained by means of fraud, false repre- sentation or concealment of any material fact. This power cannot, therefore, be exercised unless such fraud, false representation or suppression of a material fact exists. It was contended by the respondents that the petitioners had obtained registration as citizens of India by suppressing the fact that they had earlier applied to the Government of India for long term visas for permanent settlement in India which had been refused by that Government. The making of the previous applications and their rejection are no doubt material facts. The contention however that these facts were concealed is clearly unfounded. It has been proved to our satisfaction by the production of the original applications for registration made by the petitioners that they had mentioned the fact that their applications for permission to settle permanently in India had been rejected by the Government. As we understood learned counsel for the respondents, he also accepted this position. The only other point that was taken by the respon dents was that the Collector having the power to grant the registration certificate under the Citizenship Act hfl.d by virtue of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, and apart from s. 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, the power to cancel it. We are entirely unable to agree that s. 21 conferred on the Collector any such power. The orders mentioned in that section are not orders of the kind contemplated in s. 5 "of the Citizenship Act. It seems to us therefore that the orders cancelling the registration of the petitioners as citizens were wholly illegal and unsupportable and they are accord ingly set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to the costs of this application. ... Petition allowed .