This rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

_ (2) The petitioner claims to be an Indian citizen and his case is that he was born in the district of Dacca in 1922 and migrated to Jalpai-guri, now in West Bengal, some time in the year 1932. Thereafter he came to Dhubri and worked as manager in his uncle's hotel. The petitioner went to Pakistan but he came back to India on a passport obtained from the Government of Pakis­tan in the year 1952. Since then he has been stay­ing at Dhubri. In 1957 he applied for registra­tion of his name as a citizen of this country, but that application was refused. Thereafter an order was passed by the Superintendent of Police ask­ing him to quit India. For violation of the order he was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Fo­reigners Act but was acquitted on the ground that the order of the Superintendent of Police was without any authority. Thereafter, on the 20th of July, 1961 tile Present order was passed by the Superintendent of Police asking him to leave India within thirty days. On receipt of the order, the present petition is filed in this Court.

(3) The validity of the order has been chal­lenged mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, and, thus, no order under Sec. 3 of the Act could have been passed against him. He bases his contention mainly on the provisions of Article 6 of the Constitution. His contention is that prior to 1948 he migrated to India and since then he has been residing in India continuously, and, as such, he was a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution of India in the year 1950. He has continued to be an Indian citi­zen and merely by coming to India in the year 1952 on a Pakistani passport he did not lose his citizenship right.

The State has entered appearance in opposition to the present petition and two-fold contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the State. Firstly, it is urged that in the year 1932 when the petitioner came to India, he had no intention to settle here and thus he did not mi­grate to India within the meaning of Article 6 of-the Constitution. It is further urged that the peti­tioner never continued to reside in India and thus he was not an Indian citizen at the commencement of the Constitution. It is also urged that even if he be deemed to be a citizen of India in the year 1950, in 1952 when he came to India on a passport obtained from the Government of Pakistan in which he showed himself to be n citizen of Pakistan, his citizenship right terminated within the meaning of Section 9 of the Indian Citizenship Act passed in the year 1955.

(4) Mr. Islam, who appears for the petitioner, contends that the State case mainly is that the petitioner was never, a citizen of India at the date of the Constitution coming into force, and, there­fore, the proper relief which the petitioner is en­titled to is to remit an issue to the District Judge for determination of the question of fact as to whether the petitioner migrated to India prior to 1948 and whether thereafter resided there conti­nuously or not. It is contended that the position of the State is that even if the petitioner was an Indian citizen at the commencement of the Cons­titution, he lost his Indian citizenship by virtue of the fact that he came to India in the year 1952 on a Pakistani passport.

(5) Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, pro­vides that any citizen of India who by naturalisa­tion, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires or has at any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act 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. Clause (2) of Section 9 provides 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