MEHROTRA, C. J.: The petitioner has challenged by means of this petition a notice issued by the opposite party the Superintendent of Police and Registration Officer, Darrang, Tezpur asking him to quit India under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not a foreigner as he is an Indian citizen and thus no notice could be issued against him under Section 3. The petitioner has based his claim of Indian citizenship on the ground of a certificate of citizenship granted to him by the Sun-Deputy Collector, Halem Circle under section 5(1) (a)/(d) of the. Citizenship Act, 1955. The petitioner applied for the grant of a certificate of citizenship under section 5(1) (a)/(a), and the certificate was granted in the prescribed form by " the Sub-Deputy Collector, Halem Circle. Unless that certi­ficate is set aside or so long as the certificate is in force, the petitioner can claim to be an Indian citizen and the notice under section 3 of the Foreigners Act will be In­valid against him. (2) The State has filed a counter-affidavit in respect to the petitioner's allegations and therein it is stated that the certificate was procured by misrepresentation and fraud. If the certificate has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud there is ample jurisdiction in the Central Govern­ment under section 10 of the Citizenship Act to cancel such a certificate after going through the proper proce­dure laid1 down under the Act and the rules framed there­under. Even if the petitioner has committed fraud, he could be prosecuted under section 17 of the Indian Citizenship. Act. But so long as the certificate is in force the petitioner | cannot be treated to be a foreigner and the notice under5 Section 3 of the Foreigners Act will be invalid. (3) It was contended by the counsel for the State in the argument that under section 5 of the Citizenship Act the prescribed authority can grant a certificate of citizen­ship to a person. In the present case the officer granting the certificate is not the authority who is empowered to do so under the rules. (3) It was contended by the counsel for the State in the argument that under section 5 of the Citizenship Act the prescribed authority can grant a certificate of citizen­ship to a person. In the present case the officer granting the certificate is not the authority who is empowered to do so under the rules. Rule 2 of the Citizenship Rules has defined a 'Collector' to mean in the Presidency Town of Bombay, Calcutta or Madras, the Collector thereof, and elsewhere the chief officer-in-charge of the revenue ad­ministration of a district, and includes such other officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint to perform the functions of the Collector under these Rules in respect of any area. The officer who under the Central Government may perform the function of the Collector under the Citizenship Act, will be a collector within the meaning of the word in the Act itself and unless it can be shown that the Sub-Deputy Collector was not authorised to grant such a certificate, no presumption can be drawn against the petitioner and it cannot be held that the certificate was issued without jurisdiction. The certificate is in the form prescribed under the rules and it purports to be granted in the exercise of the powers given under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. The official act will be deemed to have been done in accordance with the law and if the point had been taken by the State in the counter-affidavit that It Is not a cer­tificate granted by the proper authority, the petitioner might have been in a position to file certain notification authorising the Sub-Deputy Collector to entertain such an application. But in the absence of any such point prima facie the certificate as to be accepted and the order asking the petitioner to quit India is illegal. We accordingly gram the petition and direct the opposite parties not to give effect to the notice dated 21-12-61 issued by the Superin­tendent of Police and Registration Officer, Darrang, Tezpur against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act. But the parties will bear their own costs. (4) S. K. DUTTA J.: 1 agree. Petition allowed.