JUDGMENT - P.S. Shah, J.:---The Petitioner Kamruddin son of Jan Mohamed has been detained by an order dated February 11, 1974 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, General Administration Department, under the provisions of Clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 3 and sub-section (i) of section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. This order of detention has been challenged by the detenu. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not a Pakistani National, and he has all along been an Indian citizen. According to him, he went to Pakistan in the year 1954 and came back to India on official passport, and since 1960 he is settled in India. He has, therefore, challenged the order of detention in this habeas corpus petition. 2. It appears from the affidavit of the Detaining Authority that the detenu entered the Indian Territory on passport No. PSC 310344 dated May 28, 1960, issued by the Government of Pakistan and Visa No. C/78791 dated June 17, 1960, through Barmer check post on September 29, 1960. He was residing at village Khachrod in Madhya Pradesh. He reported to Madhya Pradesh Police of his departure to Pakistan, but in fact he never went to Pakistan and disappeared since November 1, 1960. As the efforts of the Madhya Pradesh Police to find him out failed, a lookout notice was issued in July 1961. He was thereafter arrested at Dhulia on September 13, 1971, where he was working in a textile mill under a fake name as Mohammed Shakoor. He was charge-sheeted under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, but in the meantime, the Government of Maharashtra issued the deportation order dated October 16, 1971, and, therefore, the criminal proceedings against him were withdrawn. It further appears that he was taken to the Barmer check post for deportation to Pakistan on November 9, 1971, but the deportation was not possible in view of the concentration of forces on either side of the border. He was therefore brought back to Bombay, where he was entered under the Foreigners Internment Order 1962, and thereafter he was detained under the order of detention passed against him. 3. On September 25, 1974 the detenu along with some others was sent to Wagha border for being repatriated to Pakistan. He was therefore brought back to Bombay, where he was entered under the Foreigners Internment Order 1962, and thereafter he was detained under the order of detention passed against him. 3. On September 25, 1974 the detenu along with some others was sent to Wagha border for being repatriated to Pakistan. As the detenu denied that he was a citizen of Pakistan, he could not be deported, and, therefore, was again brought back to Bombay and was detained. It has been stated in the affidavit of the Detaining Authority that in view of the absence of the valid travel document, it is not possible to deport him through regular Check Post. However, efforts are being made through the Swiss Embassy to arrange for travel document for the petitioner but so far the Swiss Embassy has not succeeded in getting such documents. Efforts were also being made by the Government of India to repatriate him in exchange of other prisoner of his category, and as soon as the formalities are completed, the detenu will be repatriated to Pakistan. 4. It is urged by Mr. Sonawane, the learned Advocate appearing for the detenu, that the detenu is not a Pakistani National and there is nothing to show that he was in India till 1954 when he went to Pakistan and thereafter returned back to India in the year 1960. 5. On the material as it stands, it is difficult to accept this submission of Mr. Sonawane. There is prima facie evidence that the detenu entered Indian territory under a valid passport and visa issued by the Government of Pakistan in the year 1960. Since then he has not made any efforts to approach the Central Government and claim Indian Nationality on the basis of the evidence that may be with him. Mr. Kotwal, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, states before us that when the detenu was interviewed by the Swiss Embassy, he admitted that he was a Pakistani National. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to uphold the contention of the detenu that the order of detention is invalid. It is for the Central Government to decide the question as to whether the detenu is an Indian National or a foreigner, and such a decision can be taken by the Central Government in case the detenu chooses to approach the Central Government. It is for the Central Government to decide the question as to whether the detenu is an Indian National or a foreigner, and such a decision can be taken by the Central Government in case the detenu chooses to approach the Central Government. In view of the prima facie evidence against the detenu that he is a Pakistani National, his detention is legal and valid. Petition therefore fails. 6. The petition is rejected and the rule is discharged. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the Central Government and get the question of his nationality decided in a proper proceeding. Copy of the judgment to be sent to jailor. -----