ORDER Mukerji, J.
1. This is a petition by Haflz Ab-dul Rahman under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari to quash an order made by respondent No. 1 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, their agents and employees not to arrest or deport the petitioner to Pakistan.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition shortly stated were these:
3. The petitioner alleges that he was a citizen of India having been born and bred at Tanda, a place in the District of Faizabud in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner further alleges that he had been carrying on his family profession of weaving and that he had carried on that profession at Tanda up to the year 1953 when he was 'tempted' to leave India and go to Pakistan to try his luck there.
The petitioner alleges that he left India for Pakistan as a temporary measure with no intention of giving up his Indian domicile or with any intention to acquire Pakistani domicile because he had no intentions of permanently settling down in the territory of Pakistan. The petitioner further alleges that when he found that conditions prevailing in the weaving industry in Pakistan were bad, then he and his wife decided to return to India.
4. From the affidavit of the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner left for Pakistan along with a large group of weavers who left India for Pakistan. It is also clear that the petitioner did not go to Pakistan on any permit.
5. The petitioner and his wife came to Tanda some time in May 1955. after obtaining a passport from the Government of Pakistan. It appears that the passport on which the petitioner came to India was a passport issued to him as a Pakistan national. From the affidavit of the petitioner himself it is clear that the petitioner applied several times to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the extension of the period of his stay under the passport.
When the petitioner's attempts to get further extension failed, then it appears that the petitioner conceived the idea of alleging that he was an Indian national and, therefore, could not be deported. Along with his affidavit the petitioner has filed some annexures and An-nexure A purports to be the copy of an application which was submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Uttar Pradesh. This application is dated the 2nd of August 1955. It was for the first time in this application, in para. 2, that the petitioner stated that he was an Indian national and that the question of his status was under consideration and, therefore, he prayed for further extension of time.
This application, however, does not indicate where this question of the petitioner being or not being an Indian national was under consideration. From the various applications and from the fact that the petitioner himself obtained a passport as a Pakistan national to come to India, the petitioner's contention that all this he did under a bona fide mistake cannot be accepted. The question whether the petitioner was an Indian national or a Pakistan national can be determined under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Section 9(1) of that Act clearly lays down that "Any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at any time between the 26 January, 1950, and the commencement of this Act (30th December 1955), voluntarily acquired, the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the case may be, such commencement cease to be a citizen of India:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a citizen of India who, during any war in which India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, until the Central Government otherwise directs."
Under the provisions of this sub-section, prima facie, the petitioner voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country and, therefore. lost his Indian citizenship. Sub-section (2) of this section lays down that "If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf."
Sub-section (2) therefore, provides for a contingency like the one that arises on the claims made by the petitioner in this petition.
6. Rule 30 of the Rules framed under the Citizenship Act provides that "If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of another country, the authority to determine such question shall, for the purposes of Section 9(2) be the Central Government."
Sub-rule (2) of this Rule provides that "The Central Government shall in determining any such question have due regard to the rules of evidence specified in Schedule III."
7. The law has, therefore, provided for a forum for the determination of the question whether or not a person is an Indian national or a national of any other country. The petitioner has, therefore, to adopt the course laid down and prescribed by the Statute and not seek a remedy by approaching this Court un-der Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. For the reasons given above, I have seen no merits in this petition which I accord ingly dismiss.