Y. B. SURYAVANSHI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from treating them as Foreign Nationals of Bangladesh/or their stay in India as unauthorised, and for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking them into custody for deporting them outside India. ( 2 ) (I) Many facts are undisputed. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are, respectively, the mother and younger brother of one Narayan Chandra Pal (for short, called Pal) who came to India in 1962 and had been residing at village Punji, Gram Panchayat Chopna, in District Betul. In December 1971, war broke out between India and Pakistan. East Bengal was then part of Pakistan. Lacs of Hindu refugees from East Bengal came to India, The war culminated in the creation of a new State, now known as "bangla Desh". These two petitioners also came to India as "'refugees". The Government of India on humanitarian considerations, has set up several Rehabilitation Camps in various parts of India. The petitioners were also kept in one of such camps. Undisputedly, petitioner No. 2 was then (on 24-4-1971) a minor, being 11 years old. G. O. I. had issued Schedule to order No. 11013/5/71-F, dated 5th May 1971, from Ministry of Home Affairs. (II) The petitioners then lived with the abovementioned Pal. Petitioner No. 2 had education in H. S. School, Hirapur and passed H. S. Exam. in 1977 ( Annexures C and D ). Later, he passed B. Com. in 1981 (Annexure-E and F ). He even studied for M. A. but failed. Thereafter, he contested Panchayat election in June 1983 and defeating his rival Ramkrishna, by 51 votes to 20, was declared elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chopna. Copy of certificate issued by Election Officer, Gram Panchayat, Chopna dated 14-6-1983 is Annexure-K, and Notice dated 30th June 1983 was issued to the petitioner No. 2 by "vihit Pradhikari" for participating in the Election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (Annexure-L ). It is further undisputed, that on 5-12-1983, Police Station, Chopna took both the petitioners to the Indo-Bangla Desh border, handed them over to the Company Commandant of D-Company, 91-Battalion, B. S. F. at Haridaspur i. e. at the check-post on the border on 8-12-1983. But they managed to return at Betul. It is further undisputed, that on 5-12-1983, Police Station, Chopna took both the petitioners to the Indo-Bangla Desh border, handed them over to the Company Commandant of D-Company, 91-Battalion, B. S. F. at Haridaspur i. e. at the check-post on the border on 8-12-1983. But they managed to return at Betul. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, both of them were always dependents of Pal, who is an Indian citizen, and related to them as son and elder brother, respectively; that, Pal had been their guardian even when petitioners were in East Bengal; that, they were permitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India under the said certificate (Annexure-A); that, they were even recognized as voters in the Voters' List; and petitioner No. 2 was allowed to contest the panchayat elections; and petitioner No. 2 was returned elected as Sarpanch; that therefore they are Indian citizens; that, the petitioners were not ordinary travellers required to obtain passports, but had come under "peculiar circumstances" referred earlier, and respondent's action of deportation on the grounds that they do not possess valid passports and are foreign nationals is illegal; it is alleged that the defeated Sarpanch instigated action against the petitioners. Hence, the prayer referred in para 1 (supra ). ( 4 ) (I) According to the joint return filed by the respondents 2, 3 and 4, the petitioners were "refugees" and G. O. I. on humanitarian considerations set up camps where refugees were lodged; that, the petitioners were also kept in one of such camps; that, petitioner No. 2 was born in Bangla Desh, and as such, on the ground of his domicile of origin is a citizen of Bangla Desh. While denying that Narayan Chandra Pal had ever been their guardian, it is alleged, that G. O. I. had simply made enquiries about close relations of refugees in India, and having learnt that petitioners' close relation Pal was an Indian citizen, by way of concession, seemingly to give comfort to petitioners, permitted them to live with their relations. While denying that Narayan Chandra Pal had ever been their guardian, it is alleged, that G. O. I. had simply made enquiries about close relations of refugees in India, and having learnt that petitioners' close relation Pal was an Indian citizen, by way of concession, seemingly to give comfort to petitioners, permitted them to live with their relations. (II) That, the petitioners were neither entitled to be enrolled on the Voters' List, nor the petitioner No. 2 was accordingly, entitled to be elected as Sarpanch; and all this appears to have been due to false information given to the officers concerned; that, the petitioners while entering India had no passport or travelling documents; that, petitioners are misconstruing certificate of Entry (Annexure-A) which is in fact intended only to show that such a person had entered India in 1971; that the petitioners, by status, are still refugees and neither relationship with Pal nor their long stay confers on them Indian Citizenship; that, they are citizens of Bangla Desh and cannot be allowed to stay in India in an unauthorised manner; it is also denied that a case of citizenship rights has been made out against them at the instance of Ramkrishna, i. e. the person defeated in the election of Sarpanch; that, the petitioners had never been citizens of India by virtue of the provisions in Part II of the Constitution of India, nor they ever applied for acquiring Indian Citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955; that, they have an efficacious remedy for approaching the Government of India for determining whether they were or not citizens of India, but instead of (resorting to) specific provisions they have resorted to this remedy; that, they have placed nothing on record to show that Bangla Desh authorities have not accepted them; that, in the above circumstances, action for their deportation to Bangla Desh is quite legal and justified, though they somehow managed their return to India. ( 5 ) SOME more facts need to be stated. This M. P. No. 246/84 filed on 30-1-1984 was admitted on 2-2-1984, and ad interim order was passed directing "that the petitioners shall not be arrested and thrown out of India until further orders''. Notices were issued to show cause why that order be not made absolute. On 19-3-1984 the stay order was confirmed. On 27-8-1984 an application was moved for releasing the petitioners. Notices were issued to show cause why that order be not made absolute. On 19-3-1984 the stay order was confirmed. On 27-8-1984 an application was moved for releasing the petitioners. It was stated that in spite of orders dated 2-2-1984/19-3-1984, S. O. Chopna had arrested the petitioners on 24-6-1984 on instructions from S. P. , Betul and they have thus disobeyed the orders of this Court. On 12-11-1984 Dy. A. G. stated that the petitioners have been brought back. ( 6 ) IN this context, Shri Pandit, S. P. , Betul (respondent No. 4) submitted a reply, stating, that stay order dated 2-3-1984 was received in the office on 2-3-84. On that date, SP was under training at Hyderabad, and Shri D. B. Muley, Dy. S. P. was incharge. That, subsequent order dated 19-3-1984 affirming interim order was received on 26-3-1984 when Shri B. P. Tiwari, S. D. O. , Multai was in-charge of the office. Shri Pandit returned from Hyderabad in April 1984. A copy of the order passed by this High Court in M. P. No. 2803/83 dated 10-1-1984 dismissing the petition moved by petitioner No. 1 was received in the office of S. P. , Betul on 1-5-1984. He has submitted that under the erroneous impression that petition has already been dismissed vide orders dated 10-1-1984 (though passed in M. P. No. 2803/83 ), respondent No. 4 wrote a letter to State Government, and in response, received an order that the petitioners be deported. Hence they were taken into custody on 24-8-1984 and handed over to 93 B. S. F. Bn. Genda Border, Calcutta. That, respondent No. 4 was not present on earlier occasions and therefore, he carried an impression that the petition has been dismissed, and bona fide error was detected only when he received wireless message from Dy. A. G. on 31-8-1984. That the respondent had no intention of disobeying or flouting the order of the High Court, and this is his first mistake in a meritorious service record of more than 20 years. Respondent No. 4 had tendered regrets and unconditional apology. ( 7 ) SINCE M. P. No. 2803/83 D/-10-8-84 was referred to in the reply of respondent No. 4, we saw the original record. Respondent No. 4 had tendered regrets and unconditional apology. ( 7 ) SINCE M. P. No. 2803/83 D/-10-8-84 was referred to in the reply of respondent No. 4, we saw the original record. That was the petition filed by Narayan Chandra Pal under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of both these petitioners in the case before us. In that petition, the allegations were identical. We also saw the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in that case viz. S. P. Betul and State of M. P. , wherein, the stand taken by them is similar to the reply filed by them in the petition. However, ultimately on 10-1-84, the petitioners' counsel Shri S. C. Datta had stated that Smt. Shishubala and Sameerchandra are not in detention, and they were also present in the Court on that date. That petition, which was filed on ground of unlawful detention had become infructuous and was accordingly dismissed being infructuous. Thus, we find relevant material for considering the contention rabed by respondent No. 4. viz. that it was under erroneous impression of those orders dated 10-1-84 that he had taken further action and that it is not a case of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. We are satisfied with this explanation. ( 8 ) THE background of this petition has already been given with material details. The principal contention of the petitioner has been referred to in para 5 (supra ). It may be briefly mentioned that Part II of the Constitution deals with citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. Part II, in the Constitution. Part II, in general terms, lays down that citizenship shall be by birth by descent, by migration and by registration. Every person who has his domicile in the territory of India shall be a citizen of India, if he was born in the territory of India or either of whose parents were so born or who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution (Article 5 ). Secondly, any person who has migrated to the territory of India (i. e. Bharat) from the territory included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India, if he satisfied the conditions laid down in Articles 6 (a) and 6 (b) (i ). Any person who does not come within the purview of Articles 6 (a) and 6 (b) (i), but who hasmigrated to India and has been registered, as laid down in Article 6 (b) (ii), shall also be deemed to be a citizen of India. Similarly, a person of Indian origin, residing outside India, shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as such by an accredited diplomatic or consular representative of India in the Country where he has been residing (Article 8 ). Persons coming within the purview of Articles 5, 6 and 8 as aforesaid, may still not be citizens of India if they have migrated from India to Pakistan, as laid down in Article 7, or if they have Voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State (Article-9 ). The Constitution has Vested Parliament with the power to regulate, by legislation, the rights to citizenship and in exercise of the said powers the Parliament enacted the Citizenship Act. The Constitution in Part II, as already indicated, has determined who are Indian citizens at the commencement of the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not lay down any provision with respect to acquisition of citizenship, or its termination, or other matters relating to citizenship, after the commencement of the Constitution, this law had to be enacted by way of legislation supplementary to the provisions of the Constitution as referred above. ( 9 ) NOW turning to the provisions contained in the Citizenship Act, 1955, it provides five modes of acquiring citizenship : (i) Citizenship by birth (Section 3) (ii) Citizenship by descent (Section 4) (iii) Citizenship by registration (Section 5) (iv) Citizenship by naturalisation (Section 6 ). Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the above Act provide for renunciation of citizenship, termination of citizenship and deprivation of citizenship. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the above Act provide for renunciation of citizenship, termination of citizenship and deprivation of citizenship. There can be deprivation of citizenship acquired by him under clause (c) of Article 5 of the Constitution or clause (b) of Article 6 or clause (a) of Section 5 (1) of the Act by an order of the Central Government for any one of the reasons mentioned in sub-section (2) in the manner prescribed by sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 10; Section 9 says of any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquired, or has at any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act voluntarily acquired, as the case may be, such citizen ceases to be a citizen of India, and under sub-section (2) of section 9 : "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 regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf;" under Section 18 of the Act, the Central Government has power to make rules providing for the authority to determine the question of acquisition of citizenship of any country, the procedure to be followed and the rules of evidence relating to such cases" ; under Section 12, the Central Government may, by order notified in the Official Gazette, make provisions on a basis of reciprocity for the conferment of all or any of the rights of a citizen of India on the citizens of any country specified in the First Schedule; under Section 13, the Central Government may, in such cases as it thinks fit, certify that a person, with respect to whose citizenship of India a doubt exists, is a citizen of India; and a certificate issued under this section shall, unless it is proved that it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact, be conclusive evidence that that person was such a citizen on the date thereof; Section 14 says, that the prescribed authority or the Central Government may in its discretion, grant or refuse an application under section 5 or Section 6 and shall not be required to assign any reasons for such grant or refusal; subject to the provisions of Section 15 (providing revision) such decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. This, in a nutshell, is the general scheme under the Citizenship Act. ( 10 ) THE Citizenship Rules, 1956 provide form of application for registration under particular form for certificate of registration issued for a person who has been registered as citizen of India; under Section 5 (1) (c), the register of persons registered has to be kept; the form of application for naturalisation; the form of certificate of naturalisation which may be issued thereafter; the form pertaining to renunciation of citizenship; and Rule 30 provides, that if any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired citizenship of another country, the authority to determine such question shall, for the purposes of section 9 (2), be the Central Govt. , and the Central Govt. shall in determining any such question, have due regard to the rules of evidence specified in Schedule III; Schedule III, under Rule 30 (2), provides, that "where it appears to the Central Govt. that a citizen of India has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any other country, it may require him to prove within such period as may be fixed, by it in this behalf, that he has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country and the burden of proving that he has not so acquired such citizenship shall be on him; and for the purpose of determining any question relating to the acquisition by an Indian citizen, citizenship of any other country, the Central Govt. may make such reference as it thinks fit with respect to that question, or any matter relating thereto, to its mission in that country or to the Govt. of that country and act on any report or information received in pursuance of such reference; the fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a passport from the Govt. of any other country shall be conclusive proof of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country. Then, there are other limbs under the Schedule. of that country and act on any report or information received in pursuance of such reference; the fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a passport from the Govt. of any other country shall be conclusive proof of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country. Then, there are other limbs under the Schedule. ( 11 ) (A) The purpose of referring to these provisions is that the petitioners, who are admittedly refugees, have entered India in 1971 from East Pakistan (East Bengal) and in the grounds mentioned in the petition, they are claiming to be Indian citizens on the basis of Annexure-A, plus, their long stay in this country and other circumstances already detailed by us in para 3 (supra) which need not be repeated. The petitioners have not shown what steps, they have taken for acquisition of Indian citizenship, as provided in the provisions of Citizenship Act referred to above. Mere long stay which is unauthorised, does not confer citizenship rights. As stated by the respondents, thee petitioners were permitted to enter India as refugees and the petitioners have not shown any certificate of registration, except a solitary document (Annexure-A) which is "schedule to order No. 11013/5/71-F dated 5th May 1971 from the Ministry of Home Affairs in respect of the objection specifically taken up by the respondents. The petitioners have not filed even legible copies. On the other hand, the printed form shows that they had to furnish information regarding their names, parentage, age, present address etc. in details, the date of birth, nationality, religion; and the printed column No. 6 of this document which is relied upon by them reads : "i and my dependants have entered India and are desirous of staying in India for such period as we may be permitted to do so, for the following reasons. " the details given in the column of reasons are illegible. Then column No. 7 reads : "my permanent address in East Bengal as. . . . . . . . . . . (House No.) where applicable (Village/town/city ). . . . . . (District ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . and other details. Then there is a printed column : "permitted to stay in India till". . . . . . . . . . . (House No.) where applicable (Village/town/city ). . . . . . (District ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . and other details. Then there is a printed column : "permitted to stay in India till". (B) We fail to understand how in view of the specific provisions of law for acquisition of Indian citizenship detailed above, this annexure, coupled with long stay, and names of the petitioners appearing in the voters' list, or even election of petitioner No. 2 as Sarpanch and his education in the Districts of Betul and Hoshangabad alone could confer on them the rights of Indian citizenship. They did not take any steps for acquiring Indian citizenship as provided under the Citizenship Act. On facts stated by the petitioners Article 7 of the Constitution of India is not attracted because their sole contention is that they are Indian citizens on basis of the facts stated in para 3 (supra ). The fact that their relation Pal is an Indian citizen is immaterial. Because after partition, there are so many unfortunate. cases in which the members of a family, became citizens of India, or migrated and became citizens of Pakistan. (C) The petitioners entered India as refugees on their own showing and therefore in the overall picture before us, it will be deemed that they are foreigners. It is not their case that they are Indian citizens during the commencement of the Constitution of India" etc. as envisaged under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Constitution of India. The expression foreigner has been defined in the Foreigners Act, 1946, which means "a person who h not a citizen of India. Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, says that the Central Govt. as envisaged under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Constitution of India. The expression foreigner has been defined in the Foreigners Act, 1946, which means "a person who h not a citizen of India. Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, says that the Central Govt. may by order make provisions either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein, and in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, inter alia, may order, that a foreigner shall not enter India or shall enter India only at such times and by such route, subject to the conditions as prescribed and shall remove himself to, and remain in, such area in India as may be prescribed etc. Section 8 relates to determination of Nationality; and Section 9 relates to burden of proof, whereas Section 11 confers power to give effect to orders, directions etc. passed by the prescribed authority, which confers a right to enforce an order of expulsion. As observed in (Shamim Bano v. Union of India, AIR 1980 Raj 98 paras 22 and 23 at page 101), it is a function of the Central Govt. to decide whether Indian citizenship should be conferred on the minor children or not. Human factors are also matters of consideration for Central Govt. and this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 225 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into the disputed area of whether citizenship should be conferred or not, which is the exclusive domain of the Government of India. It seems clear that the petitioners have not taken any steps under the Citizenship Act; and if there are any humanitarian considerations, as alleged before us, it is up to the Central Govt. to consider them. It further appears that Pal had filed a petition earlier for Habeas Corpus and these two very petitioners then appeared in the Court. But in the present petition the fact of that earlier petition was filed on identical facts (though seeking the remedy of Habeas Corpus) was suppressed. to consider them. It further appears that Pal had filed a petition earlier for Habeas Corpus and these two very petitioners then appeared in the Court. But in the present petition the fact of that earlier petition was filed on identical facts (though seeking the remedy of Habeas Corpus) was suppressed. For almost 16 to 17 years the petitioners have stayed in India which alone by itself does not confer on them the status of Indian Citizenship, and they have efficacious statutory remedy under the Citizenship Act. ( 12 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons this petition is dismissed. The interim orders passed earlier are vacated. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. The security amount be refunded. Petition dismissed. .