ORDER
1. Two citizens of India viz., P. Innaiah and Lt. Col. C. T. Subiya the petitioners are calling in question the Foreigners (Report to Police) Order, 1971 (in short the 'Order') issued under S. 3 of the Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946) as amended from time to time (in short the 'Act') on the ground that the Order is ultra vires the powers under S. 3 of the Act and and that it also infringes their Fundamental Rights.
2. With a view to appreciate these conten-tip.ns it is necessary to state few facts. The petitioners claim to be the Chairman and Executive Director of the Rayalaseema Development Trust, Anantapur said to have been registered under the Societies Registration Act. They state that their Trust undertakes Projects relating to Community Health, Vocational Training, Drought Relief, Ecology Children's Education, Economic Development etc. in Rayalaseema area in Andhra Pradesh. They receive contributions from Foreign Agencies regulated under the Provisions of Foreigners Contribution Regulation Act, 1976. They also receive considerable amounts from the Central Gov-ernment for implementation of the above projects. In that connections Hans Peter Finger a representative of HEKS; P. Leuen-berger a Zurich, Pierre Bernad Le Bas of French National; Markke Drumen of Holland; Dr. Javier Marniz, a Spanish National; Jose Plaza, A Spanish Archietct; Kerole Party, an Australian and Normal Berth Rober Hushe Neel Braden of U.S.A. etc. visited India and stayed in the premises of Trust on various dates. The petitioners have not reported of the visit of those Foreigners to the nearest Police Station. As a result it was alleged they have committed an offence punishable under S. 14 of the Act read with the Order and accordingly the Police filed the Criminal Case C.C. No. 45 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Anantapur. The petitioners impugn in these proceedings the power of the Central Government to make the order.
3. The contention of Sri P. Innayya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Act applies only to Foreigners; S. 3(1) of the Act is a general provision and S. 3(2) of the Act enumerated the specified circumstances under which a Foreigner is enjoined to report etc. but there is no express provision engrafted in S. 3 of the Act empowering the Central Government to make the order; therefore the order is without jurisdiction and ultra vires the powers of the Central Government.
4. Section 2(a) of the Act defines 'foreigner' which means a person who is not a citizen of India; 'prescribed' means prescribed by orders made under the Act and 'specified' means specified by direction of a prescribed authority. S. 3(1) of the Act reads as under :
'The Central Government may by order make provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein.'
Section 3(2) of the Act enumerated diverse forms viz. 'In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, orders made under this section may provide that the foreigner--(a) shall not enter India or shall enter India only at such times and by such route and at such port or place and subject to the observance of such conditions on arrival as may be prescribed..... (c) shall not remain in India, or in any prescribed area therein; ..... (e) shall comply with such conditions as may be prescribed or specified-- (i) requiring him to reside in a particular place; (ii) imposing any restrictions on his movements; (iii) requiring him to furnish such proof of his identity and to report such particulars to.such authority in such manner and at such, time and place as may be prescribed or specified;.....'
5. Therefore it postulates general power to make provisions for any matter which is to be or may be prescribed and for such incidental and supplementary matters as may, in the opinion of the Central Government, be expedient or necessary for giving effect to the Act : thereby when the Central Government as of policy feels it expedient or necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Act it is empowered to make orders with respect to such matters, or any incidental or supplementary matters. Jn the preamble to the Constitution of India the founding-fathers envisaged that integrity of the National Unity among the people of India is the bedrock to the solidarity of the Nation. It is common knowledge and a historical fact that 'Unity in diversity' is the underlying national prime ordeal principle. On account of denial of equality of status and opportunity and historical, regional, linguistic and sectional diversity impregnable walls of separation among the people creased and as a result thereof the unity among the people has always been the weak-link. Obviously to get over this formidable difficulty, with which the Indian Society is confronted with, the founding-fathers intended to unite the Indian citizens on equal footing transcending diversities affording justice; freedom and equality among the Indian people. For assimilating people transcending different religious, lin-quistic, regional or sectional diversities, and Bharat to take a seat of pride of place among the comity of Nations, the stability of the country and progress thereof is paramount. That is why Art. 51A of the Constitution of India which was introduced by the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976 declares that it shall be the fundamental duty of every citizen to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, lingistic, regional, or sectional, cast diversities renouncing practices derogatory to the dignity of women to objure violence thereby a fundamental duty is cast upon every citizen to protect the sovereignty units and integrity of , India. In that regard when a Foreigner visits and stays in the Indian territory, the Act monsters by regulating the movements and residence of such foreigner when he/ they stayin India. S. 7 of the Act obligates the hotel-keepers to furnish the particulars of anyforeigners staying in hotels. It shall be themandatory duty of the keepers of any premises, whether furnished or unfurnished,where lodging or sleeping accomodation isprovided to submit to such person and in suchmanner such information in respect offoreigners accommodated in such premises inthe prescribed manner. With a view to obviatethe harbouring, by citizens by way of accommodating the foreigners in their houses orpremises, the order has been made as a sequelto S. 7 of the Act and incidential or supple-mental thereof, which is as follows :
'In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946), the Central Government hereby makes the following order, namely:
(1) (1) This order may be called the. Foreigners (Report to Police) Order, 1971.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
(2) Every householder or other personshall report to the officer-in-charge of thenearest police station about the arrival or presence in his household or in any premisesoccupied by him or under his control of any foreigner, if he knows or has reason to believethat he is a foreigner.'
A reading thereof clearly indicates that every house-holder or any other person shall report to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station about the arrival or presence in his house-hold or in any premises occupied by him or under his control of any foreigner if he knows or has reason to believe that he is a foreigner. Therefore the essential conditions are that they house-holder -- obviously every citizen of India -- or other person who has harboured or permitted to reside in his household or any premises occupied by him or under his control, a foreigner viz. a non-citizen of India, is bound to report the arrival in his house-hold, or in any premises occupied by him or under his control, of any foreigner to the nearest Police Station and this will be subject to the condition that he must know or must have reason to believe that the person staying in his house or in the premises underhis occupation, or control is a foreigner. Whether he knows or has reason to believe that the person whom he permitted to occupy, or entertained or permitted to reside in his house-hold or in the premises under his occupation or control, is a foreigner, is always a question of fact to be decided in each appropriate case. The question therefore is: Whether this Order is incidental or supplementary matter to the enumerated subjects in S. 3(2)(a) to (g) of the Act. In view of the object of the Act viz., to regulate the movements of the Foreigners in the Indian territory etc. as an incidental or supplementary matter to the monetering the movements of the foreigner, the order has been issued imposing statutory obligation on every house-holder or a person having control or occupation of a premises as a concomitant, duty to inform to the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station of the arrival or presence or stay of such a foreigner in his house-hold or in any premises occupied by him or under his control. The reasons are obvious; taking advantage of mutual mistrust, disunity, and varied diversities, vicious internal and external forces or anti-nationals are systematically and surreptitiously are sowing the seeds of acrimony, rivalry etc. among the people to destabilize Bharat Republic. The Order intends to stem out such anti-national activities. Therefore this Order is incidental to the main provisions of the Act. I have little hesitation to conclude that the Order is within the powers conferred by S. 3(2) of the Act; therefore it is intra vires, legal and valid.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to place before me any provision of law to show that the petitioners have got a fundamental right to allow any foreigner to stay in their house-hold or in the premises under their occupation or control. No citizen has a fundamental right to invite any foreigner, whom he believes to be a foreigner, without complying with the conditions of the Act or Order. The object of the Order is to see that a foreigner who arrives in India, stays in India under valid documents; and valid permit or visa and that his movements are controlled under Regulation. As such no citizen can claim any fundmental right to harbour any foreigner in his house-hold or inthe premises in his occupation or control. Under those circumstances I have little hesitation to hold that the claim of the petitioners that they have fundamental right is devoid of force or substance.
7. The further contention that the Order is arbitrary and offends their rights places reliance on Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. I find no force in the argument, as a citizen every Indian is duty-bound under Rule of Law to abide by it. The duty to lay information with the Police is incidental to the fundamental duty under Art. 51-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore it is just and reasonable to subserve the National interest. The further contention is that the petitioners are professing Christianity and hence the Order offends their rights conferred under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. I cannot go into the hypothetical questions as it is based on no factual foundation in the pleadings and no hypothetical questions can be gone into and given finding as to whether the Order is ultra vires.
8. It is next contended that the Act is, intended to be applied only in the Border area of Bangladesh and was issued in 1971 and as stated in para 6, wide publicity was given to the people in the neighbouring border States of Bangladesh and that it has no application to the State of Andhra Pradesh. I find no force in this contention as well. A reading of the Order does not show that its operation was circumscribed only for the Border area. On the other hand the Act applies to the entire Indian territory. When the Order is made, it applies to the entire Indian territory except where its operation is specifically limited under the Statute. Even if there is any such limitation issued by the Government of India, a mere wrong understanding thereof does not curtail the effect of the Statutory Order to limiting its operation.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners place reliance on Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H. S. Education v. Paritosh, : [1985]1SCR29 wherein their Lordships were called upon to consider and determine the tests and examine whether a policy laid down is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Inthat context it was held that: 'the question whether a particular piece .of delegated legislation -- whether a rule or regulation or other type of statutory instrument -- is in excess of the power of subordinate legislation conferred on the delegate has to be determined with reference only to the specific provisions contained in the relevant statute conferring the power to make the rule, regulation, etc. and also the object and purpose of the Act as can be gathered from the various provisions of the enactment. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act.' The ratio laid down in the above decision has no application to the facts of this case for the reasons already given above.
10. Under these circumstances, I hold that the Order applies to Andhra Pradesh and that therefore it cannot be said that the operation of the Order is limited to a specific area. The Order is a valid one. It is just and reasoanble Order incidental to the Regulations. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 1000/- as a measure of exemplary costs.
11. Petition dismissed.