ORDER :- This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ of a like nature for quashing the order of the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Manipur, Dated 12th May, 1960, directing the petitioner to leave Manipur within 7 days from the receipt of the notice. The petitioner Mrs. Chang Meiyu was born in the city of Hupeh in China in 1935. She came over to India along with her parents in 1937 when she was two years old. Since then she has been living in India. After the Indian Constitution came into force in 1930, she was registered under the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939 as a foreigner of Chinese nationality, (her serial number being 1798) on 10-9-51 (vide Annexure-A/1). She was at that time living in Calcutta, Subsequently, she moved to Manipur in January, 1953, and her registration was changed as serial number 20 of Manipur. Again, she moved to Cachar in September, 1953, and her registration was changed to number 218 of Cachar. She came back to Manipur in December, 1953, and her registration was changed to serial number 29 of Manipur. Since then, she has been permanently living in Imphal. She got married in Manipur to one M.F. Liu, another person of Chinese nationality and she has got two children by him born in 1953 and 1955. It is stated that in 1958 she got divorced from her husband and subsequently she has been doing dry cleaning business by herself in Imphal. 2. In August, 1958, the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order 1958 was made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Sec. 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Under the said order a permit has to be obtained by a foreigner to enter or remain in any protected area. Manipur being a protected area under the said order, the petitioner obtained such a permit from the person authorised by the Central Government to issue such a permit. Annexure-A/4 is the said permit obtained by the petitioner dated 28-3-59 which allowed her to remain in Manipur until 31-12-59. On 6-12-1959, the petitioner applied by Annexure-A/6 for renewal of the said permit for a period of 5 years. Annexure-A/4 is the said permit obtained by the petitioner dated 28-3-59 which allowed her to remain in Manipur until 31-12-59. On 6-12-1959, the petitioner applied by Annexure-A/6 for renewal of the said permit for a period of 5 years. On 19-3-60, the petitioner applied for extension of her permission, to reside in India as an alien for a period of 5 years stating therein that the authorised period of residence in India expired on 4-4-60. A foreigner had to obtain a permit to reside in India originally under the Foreigners Order, 1939 and subsequently after the Foreigners Act, 1946 came into force under Order No. 9/9/46-PolitiCal (EW) which was passed on 10-2-1948 under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Annexure-A/10 would show that the petitioner had obtained permission to stay in India under the aforesaid order until 4-4-60. This permit is quite separate from the permit required under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958. The latter permit is called the Inner line permit and a foreigner has to take that permit in addition to the permit to reside in India, if he wants to reside in the protected areas. 3. In the said application Annexure-A/10, the petitioner has stated that she was of Chinese nationality, that she held Passport No. 1005985 dated 25-5-55 valid up to 7-1-65 and that she has been living in India for business purposes. This would show that as late as 1955 long after the Indian Constitution came into force, the petitioner has obtained a Chinese passport and that the said passport was still in force. On the said application the Additional Superintendent of Police, Manipur recommended that she may be allowed to stay in India, but not within the protected areas of Manipur Territory. On 12-5-60, a reply Annexure-A/7 was sent to her by the Additional Superintendent of Police to her application for the extension of the inner line permit to reside in Manipur and it was to the effect that her application was rejected by the Government of India and as such she was to leave Manipur within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice. It is this order that she has challenged in this writ. It is this order that she has challenged in this writ. On 14-5-60, she wrote in reply to Annexure-A/7 the letter Annexure-A/8 for an extension at 15 days to allow her time to wind up her business fit Imphal and accordingly 15 days time was given by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Manipur, by his order dated 17-5-60 and she was asked not to be in Manipur after 2-6-60. After applying for this extension of time by 15 days, she has come forward with this present writ on 16-5-60. 4. Now her contention in this writ is that she was an Indian citizen and not of Chinese nationality. She relied on Art. 5 of the Indian Constitution in support of it. She would say that she arrived in India in 1937, that at the commencement of the Constitution in 1950, she had her domicile in the Territory of India, that she had been ordinarily resident in the said territory for not less than 5 years immediately preceding the Constitution and that therefore she automatically became an Indian citizen from 26-1-50. She would say that her application for extension of stay in Manipur beyond April, 1960, by Annexure-A/10 was made in ignorance of her rights as an Indian citizen and that the order passed by the Government of India under the Foreigners Act:, 1946 refusing her permission has prejudicially affected her rights as an Indian citizen and that such an order must be treated as a quasi-judicial order and that it should be set aside by this Court. 5. I am afraid the petitioner cannot seek the help of this Court in this manner under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It may be that she has been a resident of India from 1937 and Continued to reside in India until the Constitution came into force on 26-1-50. Article 5(c) of the Constitution, no doubt, provides that a person who had his domicile in the territory of India and who had been ordinarily resident in the said territory for not less than 5 years immediately preceding the Constitution shall be a citizen of India. But if she wanted to claim to be a citizen of India under Art. 5(c) of the Constitution, she ought to have done so immediately after the Constitution. It was admitted that she was born in the town of Hupeh in China. But if she wanted to claim to be a citizen of India under Art. 5(c) of the Constitution, she ought to have done so immediately after the Constitution. It was admitted that she was born in the town of Hupeh in China. When the Constitution came into force she had two courses open before er. She could either have exercised her rights to claim the citizenship of India or she could have treated herself as a Chinese national and requested for permission to stay in India as a Foreigner under Order No. 9/9/46- Political (EW) dated 10-2-1948 passed under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Under Rule 7 of that order, every foreigner shall obtain from the Registration Officer a permit medicating the period during which he or she was authorised to remain in India under the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 and the Rules framed thereunder called the Registration of Foreigners Rules 1939. A foreigner had to register himself and a registration report had to be made by the Registration Officer. If the petitioner chose to treat herself as an Indian citizen when the Constitution came into force she should not have got herself registered under the Registration of Foreigners Act or the Rules framed thereunder. She should have pointed out to the authorities concerned that she was no longer a foreigner and had become an Indian citizen and that no registration was permissible or necessary in her case. But Annexure-A/1 shows that she was registered on 10-9-1951 as a Chinese national by birth. This must have been done at the instance of the petitioner on her application. 6. This shows that even after the Indian Constitution, the petitioner preferred to treat herself as1 a Chinese national and not as an Indian citizen. Again, when she came to Manipur in January, 1953, went to Cachar in September, 1953 and again came back to Manipur in December, 1953 changes in her registration as a Chinese national were allowed to be made. All this is seen from Annexure-A/1. Again, we get from Annexure-A/10 that she obtained a passport from China on 25-5-55 being passport No. 1005985 which is valid upto 7-1-65. This shows that she voluntarily chose to treat herself as a Chinese national in 1955 and did not claim to be an Indian citizen. All this is seen from Annexure-A/1. Again, we get from Annexure-A/10 that she obtained a passport from China on 25-5-55 being passport No. 1005985 which is valid upto 7-1-65. This shows that she voluntarily chose to treat herself as a Chinese national in 1955 and did not claim to be an Indian citizen. After the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958, came into force, she again applied for a permit to stay in Manipnr and the permit Annexure-A/4 valid upto 31-12-60 was given to her. Again, when the said period expired she applied as seen from Annexure-A/5 dated 10-12-53 for extension of the period of permit and the permit was extended upto 4-4-60. In the said application she has stated that she was of Chinese nationality. Even in her latest application on 19-3-60, Annexure-A/10, she has described herself as of Chinese nationality. Thus for a period of 10 years after the Indian Constitution came into force she has consistently treated herself as a Chinese national and not as an Indian citizen. It was only when permission was refused to her to remain in Manipur as a foreigner under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958, beyond 12-5-60 that she attempted the present ruse of claiming Indian citizenship and disclaiming Chinese nationality. 7. I must say that in her petition she has suppressed all the above facts and simply stated that her application for extension for further stay in Manipur - evidently she was referring to her application Annexure-A/10 was made in ignorance of her rights as an Indian citizen. She has not referred to her registration as a Chinese national in September, 1951, the changes in her registration in Manipur, Cachar and again in Manipur in 1953, her application under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958 for permission to stay in Manipur,, her obtaining a Chinese passport on 25-5-55 valid upto 7-1-65 and even her latest application Annexure-A/8 on 14-5-60, two days before she filed the present petition requesting for 15 days extension of the permit. On this one ground of suppression of facts alone, this petition deserves dismissal without going into the merits. In a writ petition, suppression of facts which are necessary for this Court to come to a decision on the points involved in the petition is itself fatal to the application. But for the written statement of the respondents the above facts would not have come to light. In a writ petition, suppression of facts which are necessary for this Court to come to a decision on the points involved in the petition is itself fatal to the application. But for the written statement of the respondents the above facts would not have come to light. 8. Even if we go into the merits of her application, I am afraid she has no case at all. It was on her application under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958 that she was given a residential permit valid upto 31-12-59 for residence in Manipur. It was further extended upto 4-4-60 again on her application, In both the applications, she has herself stated that she is a Chinese national. She has not referred to those applications in her present petition, but only to the application Annexure-10, which she, of course, says was made in ignorance of her rights as an Indian citizen. We have to take it therefore that her previous applications for registration as a Foreigner and for changes of her registration when she moved from place to place and her further application under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958 were not made in ignorance of her rights as an Indian citizen. In any case, she cannot say that she got a passport from China, her mother country in 1955 in ignorance of her rights as an Indian citizen. At least in 1955 when she got that passport she definitely treated herself as a Chinese national. 9. We have to take it therefore that her idea to claim Indian citizenship arose for the first time in her mind only when she was refused permission to extend her stay in Manipur. It is not a case of ignorance of her rights as an Indian citizen. It is a case of an attempt to claim Indian citizenship for the first time, when she was refused permission to stay in Manipur as a foreigner. 10. After all, citizenship of a country and particularly of this country under Art. 5 of the Constitution is not something which is thrust on a person. It is something which a person has the right or, may I say, the honour to claim. It depends on the intention of a person to avail for himself or herself of such citizenship, on the strength of the citizenship laws of a country. It is something which a person has the right or, may I say, the honour to claim. It depends on the intention of a person to avail for himself or herself of such citizenship, on the strength of the citizenship laws of a country. The petitioner had the opportunity to claim such citizenship when the Indian Constitution came into force. If she did not desire to claim it then, but chose on the strength of her birth in China to treat herself as a Chinese national, she cannot at this distant date, 10 years after the Indian Constitution came into force rely on Art. 5 of the Constitution and call upon this Court to declare that she is an Indian citizen by virtue of the said Article, particularly when she still retains her Chinese passport on the basis of her Chinese nationality. A person cannot have dual nationality and cannot claim to be the citizen of two countries at the same time. Thus, even on the merits, she is not entitled to any relief. 11. Further, I am unable to understand what relief she really wants in this application. She had herself obtained permission to stay in Manipur until 4-4-60. When the period of that permission expired, she has to go out of this place and if she refused to go or continued to stay, the authorities concerned have the right under law to expel her. All that has been done by the order dated 42-5-60 was to point out to her that the period of her permission had expired, that it has not been extended and that she must leave Manipur within a period of 7 days. It is an order passed by the appropriate authority in accordance with the Rules. I fail to see how this Court can interfere with that order. 12. If the petitioner now says that all her applications for registration, change of registration, inner line permits, extension of stay etc. were made under a misapprehension and in ignorance of her rights as Indian citizen, it is for her to approach the appropriate authorities and get herself declared as an Indian citizen by satisfying them that her conduct was in ignorance of her rights. It is not for this Court to interfere in such matters. were made under a misapprehension and in ignorance of her rights as Indian citizen, it is for her to approach the appropriate authorities and get herself declared as an Indian citizen by satisfying them that her conduct was in ignorance of her rights. It is not for this Court to interfere in such matters. If the authorities are satisfied that she was really an Indian citizen and that she was no longer the national of another country or had renounced such nationality, they would give the necessary relief to her. The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to get a declaration of her Indian Citizenship. That is exactly what she wants in this application. I am afraid that she has totally misconceived her remedy. 13. It was pointed out for the petitioner that if this application is dismissed, she will be expelled from this country and that she will have no opportunity to approach the appropriate authorities for relief. But I find that by the order dated 12-5-60 she has been asked only to leave Manipur, which is a protected area and not to leave India. Thus she will not be deprived of the opportunity to approach the authorities for relief and to satisfy them that she is an Indian citizen. 14. I see no merits at all in this application. It is accordingly dismissed with the Costs of the respondents. Advocates fee Rs. 100/-. The petitioner asks for some time to wind up her affairs, I have no jurisdiction to grant her time. She may apply to the authorities concerned and I have no doubt that any reasonable request will be favourably considered. Application dismissed.