JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - Petitioner Attaullah has filed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the respondents to set at liberty forthwith and not to deport the petitioner to any other foreign country. A prayer to grant such other relief as the Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case is also claimed. 2. According to the petitioner he is a citizen and national of India. He went to Pakistan in the year 1952 after obtaining a Passport from the Government of India. After six months he returned to India. He has been taken away by the Police and detained illegally. 3. According to the respondents, the petitioner is a Pakistani citizen and national and came to India on the basis of Passport and Visa on 10-6-1956. His Visa for stay in India was for a period of six months from the date of his arrival in India. Despite the expiry of the Visa the petitioner overstayed in India and had been absconding. The petitioner has already been deported to Pakistan on 12-9-1986 on the orders of the competent authority. 4. The only specific as well as main relief of the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus petition (besides for the cost of the petition) runs as follows : - "to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith and not to deport the petitioner to any other foreign country." Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner had been deported from India to Pakistan. According to him, this has been done during the pendency of the writ petition. But from the side of the respondents proof has been furnished in support of the affirmation of deporting the petitioner on 12-9-1986 under the deportation order. The petitioner came to India on Passport and Visa issued by the Pakistani authorities. The counter-affidavit filed by Sri S.K. Jain, under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, further shows that he arrived in India on 10-6-1956 and the period of his stay under the Visa was for six months from the date of his arrival in India. The counter-affidavit filed by Sri S.K. Jain, under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, further shows that he arrived in India on 10-6-1956 and the period of his stay under the Visa was for six months from the date of his arrival in India. It being an admitted fact that the petitioner had already been deported from India to Pakistan, it therefore, necessarily follows that the petitioners aforementioned relief for setting him at liberty and for giving direction to the respondents not to deport the petitioner to any other foreign country, has become quite in-fructuous and in no circumstance this relief can now be granted. The writ petition is, therefore, to fail on account of being in-fructuous. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner has claimed a general relief also. That relief is for issue of such order or direction as is deemed fit and proper by the court under the circumstances of the case. He contended that under this relief the petitioner now presses for direction from this court to the respondents for deciding the question of his being Indian citizen and to hold him an Indian citizen. The contention of the State counsel that this is a Habeas Corpus writ petition and so the order/direction of this nature sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in this petition carries force. Apart from it, there is no specific prayer or relief for issuing any writ or for giving any direction to the respondents or to any one else for deciding the question of citizenship of the petitioner or about holding him an Indian citizen or acquiring citizenship of another country. The reliefs sought by a petitioner should be specific, concrete and clear cut. Had the petitioner really wanted such a relief from this court he must have prayed for it. Moreover, the question of the petitioners having acquired citizenship of another country or ceasing to be an Indian citizen is to be determined under S. 9 of Citizenship Act 1955. For this purpose the proper authority is not this Court but the Special Tribunal constituted under the Citizenship Act. The learned counsel for the State has referred to R.3 of Sch. For this purpose the proper authority is not this Court but the Special Tribunal constituted under the Citizenship Act. The learned counsel for the State has referred to R.3 of Sch. III Citizenship Rules, 1956 which lays down : The fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a passport from the Government of any other country shall be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country before that date." 6. This rule has been held intra vires in the case of Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052 . As already mentioned above, in the instant case the petitioner had come to India in 1956 on the basis of the passport and Visa for six months obtained from Pakistan Government. 7. The case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Khan, AIR 1962SC 1778 cited from the side of the petitioner in support of his contention that the Central Government should be asked to make enquiry into the citizenship rights of the petitioner is quite distinguishable. In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) the respondents who were claiming orders against their deportation were present in India throughout the pendency of the proceedings in law court. Consequently, grant of the effective remedy by the court against their deportation from India was possible and feasible. In the instant case the petitioner has already been deported out of India and is neither within the jurisdiction of this Court nor in the territory or control of the Government of India. In the case of Govt, of Andhra Pradesh (supra) enquiry into the citizenship right by the Central Tribunal constituted under the Citizenship Act could be made and was required to be made before actual deportation as the persons concerned were available in India and had not been deported. They were simply issued notices calling upon them to leave India. In the instant case as the petitioner has already been deported from India to Pakistan, Special Tribunal can hardly make a proper enquiry, It cannot be asked by this Court to make an enquiry. It cannot be asked by this Court to make an enquiry at his back. Therefore, the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) is of little avail to the petitioner in this petition. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.