Custody and citizenship determination lies with the Central Government as per Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

1. The petitioner, Mir Abdul Qadir, has filed this petition under Section 491 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a direction from this Court in the nature of habeas corpus that the respondents 1 and 2, who are respectively the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Home Department, and the Commissioner of Police (Registration Officer), Hyderabad, should produce the petitioner before the Court, coupled with a prayer that he be released from, what the petitioner alleges to be, unlawful custody.

2. The main allegations in the petition are that about four years ago the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 601 of 1961 before this Court for a writ of mandamus restraining the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, from deporting him under the Foreigners Act , 1946. In that writ petition the petitioner's case was that he was born in Hyderabad on 29-5-1934, that he had left for Pakistan on 23-3-1952, when he was 171/2 years old; that he had come over to India in May 1960 on the strength of a Pakistani Passport No. 179396 dated 22-3-1954 bearing category 'C'Visa No. 30894 dated 17-3-1960 valid upto 6-8-1960; that he had applied for extension of stay in Hyderabad on the ground that his mother was ill; that such extension was granted on three occasions upto 25-3-1961; that when the petitioner applied again for a further extension, that was refused and a notice was served upon him to leave India before 25-3-61 falling which action would be taken against him under the Foreigners Act . The petitioner challenged the contemplated action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that as he was born in India before the commencement of the Constitution and since he had left India after the commencement of the Constitution, he had not lost his citizenship by virtue of Art. 7 of the Constitution, and consequently the State Government had no right to treat him as a foreigner and order him to leave the country.

3. That writ petition was heard by our learned brother Manohar Pershad, J., on 26-7-1963. The learned Judge, following the Supreme Court decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pir Mohemmad , AIR 1963 SC 645 held that the question about the citizenship of a person migrating to Pakistan from India after January 26, 1950, will have to be determined under the provisions of the Citizenship Act ; and Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act , lays down :
"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 :
and inasmuch as there has been no such determination by the Central Government with regard to the petitioner's citizenship, the writ petition had to be allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released from custody. The learned Judge, however, made this significant observation towards the end of this judgment :
"It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner has applied to the Central Government for determining his citizenship rights. If the decision of the Central Government goes against the petitioner, it may be competent to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner."

4. Now, the present case of the petitioner is that he had received a notice dated 3-1-1965 from the Central Government directing him to send his representation bearing upon the question whether or not he had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan, and intimating to him that upon the receipt of such representation, the Central Government would determine the question. Pursuant to that notice, the petitioner sent his representation dated 26-3-1965 setting out his case and