ARUNACHALAM, J.

( 1 ) ALL these petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the respondent is the same and the contentions raised are identical. Further, the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 9727 of 1988, is the husband of the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 9730 of 1988, and the father of petitioners in Cr1. MP. Nos. 9733, 9736, 9739 and 9742 of 1988. All these petitions have been preferred under section 482, Cr. P. C. to call for the records and quash the pending prosecutions in C. C. Nos. 92 to 97 of 1988 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court.

( 2 ) ALL the petitioners are facing a charge under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The petitioners are stated to be foreigners, namely, citizens of Republic of Sri Lanka, holding passports of that country. All of them arrived in India on 11/3/1986 and were permitted to stay in this country until 12/8/1986, as per residential permits issued. Without obtaining extension permits, they continued to remain in India and hence are liable for punishment under section 14 of the Foreigners Act read with para 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948.

( 3 ) MR. R. Shanmughasundram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the petitioners, contended that the petitioners in each of these petitions, was not a foreigner and a Foreigners Act did not apply to them. The petitioners in Cri. M. P. Nos. 9727 of 1988 and 9730 of 1988 are citizen of India by birth, and they had not voluntarily acquired citizenship of Sri Lanka. The passports obtained by them, did not terminate their Indian Citizenship since they had not voluntarily acquired Sri Lanka Citizenship. In such cases where the question of citizenship is disputed, the Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the question of citizenship or termination of Indian Citizenship, for the only authority who could decide the question is the Central Government, under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act read with Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules. The petitioners, as citizens of India, were not bound-to apply for stay permits in this country. These prosecutions cannot be proceeded with, at this premature stage, unless and until a decision was taken by the competent authority under section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, As far as the petitions in Cr1. M. Ps. Nos. 9733, 9736, 9739 and 9742 of 1988 are concerned. Mr. Shanmughasundaram submitted that though they were born outside India, they shall be deemed citizens of India by descent, as their father (Petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 9727 of 1988) was a citizen of India at the time of his birth.

( 4 ) ON these contentions, I have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He contended that Rajeswari (petitioner in Cri. M. P. No. 9730 of 1988) was not an Indian citizen by birth and placed for my scrutiny her passport, which shows the place of her birth, as Jaffna, Sri Lanka, and the date of her birth as 11/10/1989.

( 5 ) I have carefully considered the divergent contentions urged by the opposing counsel. I had occasion to consider this very question in Hajee M. Mohamed Kassim and others v. S. I. of Police. Kattur1 and I have held therein, as follows: T1section 14 of the Foreigners Act imposes penalties on person, who contravenes the provisions of the Act or any order made there under of any direction given in pursuance of the Act or such order. Para, 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 takes in its fold obtaining of permits by foreigners, to remain in India. A foreigners has been defined under the Foreigners Act, to mean a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 9 of the Citizenship Act relates to termination of citizenship. Sub-section (2) of section 9 contemplates determination as to when and how any person had acquired the citizenship of another country, by an authority contemplated therein in such a manner and having regard to such rules and evidence as may be prescribed. Sch