MEHROTRA, C. J.: These two matters raise .common question of law and fact and can be disposed of by one com­mon judgment. (2) In Civil Rule No. 206, the petitioners are Sekandar Bepari, Ghutu Sheikh and Jaharuddin, and, in Civil Rule No. 207, the petitioners are Sital Sekh alias Sital Bepari and Majibar Sheikh. (3) Notices were issued by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara, against the petitioners under Sec- 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, asking them to leave Goalpara within a certain time failing which the petitioners were to be prosecuted under Sec­tion 14 of the Foreigners Act. The validity of these notices has been challenged by petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. (4) The contention raised by the petitioners is 'that they have all along been Indian citizens, from before the commencement of the Constitution, and they continued to reside in India and had not lost their Indian citizenship. A foreigner has been defined under Sec. 2 of the Foreigners Act to mean that a person who is not a citizen of India is a foreigner. As the petitioners claim to be citizens of India, they contend that the provisions of the Foreigners Act do not apply to them and the notices are thus without jurisdiction. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In the counter-affidavit it is alleged that the peti­tioners are not Indian citizens. They came to India and in the riots of 1950 went to Pakistan with a view to settle there. The father of the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 206 died in Pakistan. Thereafter the petitioners surreptitiously came to India, but they are not Indian citizens. This Court remitted an issue to the District Judge to find out whether the petitioners were Indian citizens at the commencement of the Constitution and on the date) when the notices were issued. The Dis­trict Judge after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after considering the evi­dence thus adduced has come to the conclusion that the petitioners were in India prior to 1950 and they did live in their respective places in 1950, but there is no evidence to show that they went to Pakistan. The District Judge has held at their names found place in the electoral rolls, and, in any case, the petitioners are Indian citizens and thus the notices are invalid. (5.) Mr. The District Judge has held at their names found place in the electoral rolls, and, in any case, the petitioners are Indian citizens and thus the notices are invalid. (5.) Mr. Goswami, appearing for the State, has raised two points before us. His first contention is that as the question was a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioners were Indian citizens or not, the proper remedy of the petitioners was to file a suit and in a proceeding under Arti­cle 226 of the Constitution, this matter cannot be determined by this Court, (6) It is true that ordinarily when a disputed question of fact is raised in a petition under Arti­cle 226 of the Constitution this Court will not in such proceedings determine such a question and the remedy of the parties will be to go to a proper Court by means of a suit and get their rights declared. But, in the present case, at the first hearing of this petition, it was held by this Court that the suit could be avoided by remitting an issue to the District Judge to enquire into the matter and report after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. After the parties have been given full opportunity to adduce evi­dence, it is too late now for this Court to direct the petitioners to go and file a suit to get this matter decided. Reliance is placed on the case of Union of India v. Chans Mohammad, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1526 . In that case it is not 1 id down that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion cannot remit an: issue and get a decision by a competent Court after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the petition on the findings as given by the court below. The following observations are apposite: ''The question whether the respondent is a foreigner is a question of fact on. which there is a great deal of dispute which would require a detailed examination of evidence. A proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution would not be appropriate for a decision of the question. The following observations are apposite: ''The question whether the respondent is a foreigner is a question of fact on. which there is a great deal of dispute which would require a detailed examination of evidence. A proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution would not be appropriate for a decision of the question. In our view this question is best decided by a suit and to this course neither party seems to have any serious objection.1' It was not laid down as a matter of law that under no circumstances this Court can remit an issue and get a finding by a proper court. In that case the parties were directed to go to the Civil Court and such a course was agreed upon between the parties. The petition, therefore, at this stage can­not be thrown out on this ground. (7) The next point urged by Mr. Goswami is that the point raised is one of voluntary acquisi­tion of Pakistan citizenship by the petitioners and thus tinder Sec. 9 of the Citizenship Act, the Pro­per forum to decide this issue is the Central Gov­ernment and not this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed On 'he case of Akfoar Khan Alam Khan v. Union of India, report­ed in AIR 1962 SC 70 . Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides: "Section 9(1). - Any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise volunt­arily acquires, or has at any time between the 26th January, 1960 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: 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. (2) 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 record to such rules of evidence as may be prescribed in this behalf." Rules have been framed under Sec, 9(2), under which the Central Government is empowered to decide the matters mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 9. The only question to be decided is whether in the present case it can be said that any question arises as to whether the petitioners acquired citizenship of another country. In the counter-affidavit the only allegation made was that in the year 1950 the petitioners migrated to Pakis­tan and thus the argument in effect was that hav­ing migrated to Pakistan in the year .1950 the petitioners lost their Indian citizenship and on the date of the application under Article 226 of the Constitution they were thus not Indian citizens. Nowhere the point was raised that the petitioner by naturalisation or otherwise voluntarily acquired1 Pakistan citizenship. As this point was never taken up in the counter-affidavit in that form, the jurisdiction of this Court was, therefore, not ousted under Sec. 9 of the Act. If the contention of the State is that the petitioners have acquired Pakistan citizenship it will be open to them to get the matter decided by the Central .Government in a proper proceeding. But, as the point raised to the present petition was that having gone to Pakistan in the year 1950 the petitioners ceased to be .Indian citizens and were not Indian Citizens on the date the notices were issued against them, this Court is fully competent to get that matter decid­ed by remitting an issue to the proper court and the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted by the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Citizenship Act on the points raised in the counter-affidavit. There is, therefore, no force in the points raised by the State Counsel. (8) We accordingly allow these petitions and quash the notices dated 10th June 1981- The rule is made absolute. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs. (9) S. K. DUTTA, J. : I agree. Petition allowed.