_ , MOHD. RAZA DABSTANI v. STATE OF BOMBAY January 28 & Ors.

· The conduct of the appellant subsequent to 1949 does not help to establish that he had earlier formed the intention to in India for good. As we have already stated, he obtained a re sidential permit and from time to time applied for its extension. In these applications he described himself as an Iranian national. It was contended that this description does not militate against' It was said that a person may his claim to an Indian domicile. be a national of one country and have his domicile in another country. Here however the question of domicile arises because. on the basis of it the appellant claims citizenship of India. We· are not aware that it is possible to be a citizen of India and a· national of another country. The decision of this Court in the State • Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer('). would indicate that that cannot be done. It was there said at p. 114, "All citizens are nationals of a particular State but all nationals may not be citizens of the State." It would follow from (') [196414 S.CJl-:99; A.i.R. 1963 S.C. 1811. E F G H 444 SUPREME COUllT llBPOllTS (1966] 3 S.C.R. that that an Indian citizen cannot be a national of another State. Therefore, when the appellant described himself as an Iranian national in has applications for a residential permit and for ex tensions thereof after l 950, he was saying that he was not an Indian If he was not an Indian citizen, he did not have an Indian citizen. domicile, for if he had such a domicile, he would have been a citizen of India. These applications, therefore, furnish evidence that even after 1950 he was not of Indian domicile. We may also mention that after 1950 he obtained a duplicate of his registration certificate under the Foreigners' Rules as the original had been lost and in the application for it he described himself as an Iranian national. Then we find that in one of the applications for ex tension of residential permit he had stated that he was desirous of staying in India for business and so, not for making it his home. As late as March 30, 1957 he described himself as an Iranian national in the application that he made for naturalisation as an Indian citizen which was refused. He could have all along claimed Indian citizenship on the basis of Indian domicile if he had one. Instead of making such a claim or any effort in that regard he continued proceeding on the ~asis that he was an Iranian national. to establish It appears that in 1950 he first entered into a partnership to run a restaurant of which he became the sole proprietor in March 1953. This by itself is not enough the necessary In any case it c-,mnot show that prior to November intention. 1949 he had acquired Indian domicile. It has to be remembered that notwithstanding the commencement of a business of his own, the appellant went on describing himself as an Iranian national indicating thereby that he had not acquired an Indian domi cile though he was carrying on a business in this country. We may also point out that his father had carried on a similar business in India for thirty years and had gone back with the money earned here and settled down in his village Yezd in Iran. Then we find that the appellant had on more than one occasion asked his father to come over to India to look after his business and that he was keeping contact with his mother and sisters in Iran and had taken steps to go over to meet them. further, he made an application to a magistrate at Bombay for grant of a domicile certificate to him on October 13, 1954 which was refused. It appears from a letter that the appellant wrote to the police on September 24, 1955 in connection with a permit for extension of stay in India which he had omitted to obtain in due time that as he had applied for the that exten certificate of domicile he was under the impression si0ns of permits were no longer necessary for him. This would indicate that the appellant's real object of applying for domicile was to avoid the botheration of having to apply constantly extension of the residential pennit and not that he had intended to make India his home. ,, . • A B c D F G • H • RAZA DABSTANI v. BOMBAY (Sarkar, J.) 445 In this State of the evidence it cannot be held that the appel· lant has been able to prove his intention to settle in India or make India his home. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. A B , -