S. K. JAIN, J. Through this petition the petitioners have sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents, namely, Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh and the Superintendent of Police, Ballia not to arrest them or deport them on the vague charges of their being citizens of another country. 2. The petitioners were born in village Baheri of district Ballia and have been living there since their birth. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 belong to one family headed by Nizamuddin, petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 3 is the daughter of Majid Mian, resident of village Tapani, P. O. Janaupur, district Ballia. She was married to petitioner No. 2 Nizamuddin. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were voters in the Gram Sabha Baheri in the voter list of 1979 and they had also cast their votes in Assembly elections on several occasions. Petitioner No. 1 had a house in the village and he paid house-tax for the years 1971-1972 to 1977-78. Prior to the partition of the country in the year 1947 petitioner No. 1 was employed in Indian Railways and was serving in East Pakistan, presently known as Bangla Desh. In 1947 he could not cross over to India as he was in illegal confinement of the nationals of Pakistan, although his entire family was in India. He managed to come to India in 1950 and since then he was residing in village Baheri. Petitioner No. 2 never left the country. He was married to petitioner No. 3 and out of their wedlock petitioners Nos. 4 to 6 were born. He was running a watch repairing shop since 1970. The Police Inspector of Kotwali Ballia came to the house of petitioner on the night of 30-4-1983 and informed them that Smt. Alima Bibi had made a report against them and, therefore, they were to be arrested and deported to Bangladesh. 3. On being served, the respondents filed a reply in the form of counter-affidavit of Sri Lallan Prasad Singh, Sub-Inspector, Local Intelligence Unit, Ballia. The case of respondents is that petitioner No. 1 Akbar Ali @ Babar Ali, son of Khushal was born in 1917 and was a resident of village Baheri, district Ballia. Prior to 1947 he was married to Shariffan Bibi, daughter of Asgar Ali of village Janaupr, district Ballia. He was serving in Indian Railways in 1943. The case of respondents is that petitioner No. 1 Akbar Ali @ Babar Ali, son of Khushal was born in 1917 and was a resident of village Baheri, district Ballia. Prior to 1947 he was married to Shariffan Bibi, daughter of Asgar Ali of village Janaupr, district Ballia. He was serving in Indian Railways in 1943. In 1947 he went to East Pakistan (now known as Bangla desh) and joined the Railway service there. After sometime he came to India and took his wife Smt. Sharifan Bibi and son Nizamuddin, petitioner No. 2 to Pakistan. Petitioner No. 1 along with his wife came to India on a Pakistani Passport on 1-9-1954 and returned back on 16-9-1954. He again came to India on 22-4-58 and returned back on 3-5-1958. He alongwith his wife and son came to India on 4-6- 1961 and returned back on 25-6-1961. During this period petitioner No. 2 Nizamuddin was married to Rahman Bibi, petitioner No. 3 and she also accompanied her husband and parents in-law to Pakistan on 25-5-1961. Smt Sharifan Bibi, wife of petitioner No. 1 died at Narainganj, Dhaka in 1970. 4. In 1947 petitioner No. 1 along with petitioner No. 2 to 6 came to India illegally from Narainganj, Dhaka and started living with Qayum Uddin, son of Abdul Rahman, husband of Smt. Atiman Bibi, daughter of Khushal, at village Baheri. 5. Petitioner No. 2 Nizamuddin was born out of the wedlock of peti tioner No. 1 and his wife Smt. Sharifan in 1942 in India. During 1947 he accompanied his parents to Pakistan. He came to India with his parents on 4-6-1961, married Smt. Rahiman Bibi, petitioner No. 3 and returned to Pakistan along with his parents and wife. Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 (minors) were born at Narainganj, Dhaka (Bangladesh) during 1973 and 1970 res pectively. Km. Nasim, petitioner No. 6 (minor) was born in India in the year 1975/80. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 came to India in 1970 and started living in village Baheri illegally as mentioned earlier. 6. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by Nizamuddin, wherein it was aver red that petitioner No. 1 was employed in Railways in 1943 and was posted at Dhanbad (India ). Thereafter he was transferred to Maiman Singh (East Pakistan), now Bangladesh. 1 to 5 came to India in 1970 and started living in village Baheri illegally as mentioned earlier. 6. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by Nizamuddin, wherein it was aver red that petitioner No. 1 was employed in Railways in 1943 and was posted at Dhanbad (India ). Thereafter he was transferred to Maiman Singh (East Pakistan), now Bangladesh. In para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit it is contended that the petitioners did not abandon the citizenship of India and had not acquired the citizenship of Pakistan during the service period of petitioner No. 1. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon State of U. P. v. Rahmat Ullah, AIR 1971 SG 1382 ; State of U. P. and others v. Shah Mohd. and another, AIR 1969 SC 1234 ; Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 1966 SC 1614 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Peer Mohd. , AIR 1963 SC 645 . He has vehemently argued that the question as to whether, when or how any person had acquired citizenship of another country, the authority to determine such question under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with the Citizenship Rules, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), was the Central Government, and, therefore, the respondents could neither arrest nor deport the petitioners out of India before getting such question decided under the above provisions of the Act and the Rules by the Central Government. 8. This argument attractive at first sight is, in our opinion, not tenable on the sound appreciation of the facts and law involved in the present case. 9. Admittedly petitioner No. 1 was employed in Railways Department in 1943 at Dhanbad, but was later on transferred to Maiman Singh (East Pakistan ). He continued serving there till his retirement in the year 1977. At no point of time prior to 1977, except for three short visits, namely, from 1-9-1954 to 16-9- 1954, from 22-4-1958 to 1-5-1958 and from 4-6-1961 to 25-6-1961 either of the petitioners lived in India, Smt. Sharifan had died in Narainganj, Dhaka sometime in 1970. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 could not be said to have acquired Indian citizenship under any of the Section 3, 4, 5 or 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 10. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 could not be said to have acquired Indian citizenship under any of the Section 3, 4, 5 or 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 10. In order to ascertain the age of petitioner No. 2 Nizamuddin, docu ments placed on the record of this case, have been taken into consideration. On the basis of these documents it can be concluded that he was born some where in 1942 to 1944. Admittedly he had accompanied his parents to Pakistan as his father, petitioner No. 1 was employed there. His case is also not covered under any of the above provisions. 11. Petitioner No. 3 Smt. Nabuat (sic) @ Rahman Bibi is the daughter of Majid Mian, resident of village Tapan, district Ballia. Her marriage with Nizamuddin was performed somewhere between 4-6-1961 to 25-6-1961 whereafter she had lived in Pakistan with her husband and stayed there till 1977 when she returned to India clandestinely with her in-laws, husband and children. It is in her case that a question is posed as to whether, when or how she has acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. This question is certainly to be decided under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by the Central Government. 12. Admittedly petitioners No. 4 and 5 were born in the year 1973 and 1970 respectively at Narainganj, Dhaka, East Parkistan and in their cases the question is as to whether they having returned to India in 1977, had acquired Indian citizenship. Their case is, therefore, not covered under Sec tion 9 (2) of the Act. 13. Petitioner No. 6 Km. Naseem (minor) was admittedly born in India in 1975 or 1978. In her case the question is as to whether she had acquired Indian citizenship, and therefore, her case is also not covered under Section 9 (2) of the Act. 14. A proceeding under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India would not be appropriate for a decision of the question as to whether petitioners Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were foreigners which is a question of fact on which there is a great deal of dispute which would require a detailed examination of evi dence. 14. A proceeding under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India would not be appropriate for a decision of the question as to whether petitioners Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were foreigners which is a question of fact on which there is a great deal of dispute which would require a detailed examination of evi dence. In holding this view we are fortified by the ratio laid down in the Union of India v. Gkaus Mohammad, (1962)1 SCR 1 ; AIR 1961 SC 1526 , Moreover in Akbar Khan v. Union of India and others, (1962)1 SCR 779 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased to hold that Section 9 (2) does not prevent the Civil Court from determining the question concerning the nationality of a person. 15. Part II of the Constitution deals with citizenship. It is comprised of Articles 5 to 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that where the Constitution wanted to limit the scope of the Article by reference to the date of the commencement of the Constitution, it has used appropriate words in that behalf, and in that connection he relies on the use of words at the commencement of the Constitution which occur in Articles 5 and 6. Article 7 does not include such a clause, and so the migration from the territory of India to the territory included in Pakistan to which it refers should not be construed to be limited to migration prior to the commencement of the Constitution. Just as a person who has migrated to Pakistan from India prior to January 26, 1950 shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of such migration, so should a person who has migrated from India to Pakistan even after the commencement of the Constitution be denied the right of citizenship. That is the case of petitioners and it is based substantially on the ground that the clause at the commencement of the Constitution, is not used by Article 7. 16. This argument attractive at first sight is, in our opinion, not tenable because it is plainly inconsistent with the material words used in the Article. That is the case of petitioners and it is based substantially on the ground that the clause at the commencement of the Constitution, is not used by Article 7. 16. This argument attractive at first sight is, in our opinion, not tenable because it is plainly inconsistent with the material words used in the Article. It will be noticed that a person who shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India is one who has after the first day of March, 1947 migrated from the territory of India to the territory of Pakistan. 17. In the above factual and legal view or the matter, we feel that the writ petition on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is not competent. However, the case of petitioner No. 3 is covered under Section 9 (2) of the Act and Rule 30 of the Rules. 18. Now on the rulings cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners. 19. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rahmat Ullah, AIR 1971 SC 1182 , the respondent had entered into India on April 1, 1955 and was in possession of a Pakistani Passport and Visa to which no objection was taken by the Indian authorities. He did not enter India clandestinely and he was not to be tried for having entered India in violation of any law of India. His Visa was admittedly extended by the appropriate authority upto May 22, 1965. He was a citizen of India on the commencement of the Constitution and the ques tion arose as to whether he had lost the Indian citizenship thereafter. On the facts and circumstances of that case it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the Central Government had to determine under Section 9 of the Act the question of acquisition of Pakistani nationality by him. 20. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shah Mohammad and another, AIR 1969 SC 1234 , the plaintiff who had gone to Pakistan after 26th January, 1950 and before the commencement of the Act had returned to India on a Visa issued by the Indian High Commission, Pakistan. 20. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shah Mohammad and another, AIR 1969 SC 1234 , the plaintiff who had gone to Pakistan after 26th January, 1950 and before the commencement of the Act had returned to India on a Visa issued by the Indian High Commission, Pakistan. He instituted a suit before the commencement of the Act for declaration that under the circumstances of the case his nationality never changed even though he had gone to Pakistan and that he continued to remain a citizen of India and for a decree of perma nent injunction restraining the authorities from deporting him. In the High Court in appeal against the decision of the lower appellate court in favour of the plaintiff the Government contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdic tion to decide the question arising in the suit in view of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, which had been passed during the pendency of the proceedings read with Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. The High Court rejecting the objection framed the issue on the question whether the plaintiff had or not acquired the citizenship of Pakistan during his stay there and remitted the case to the lower appellate court for a finding on that issue. Under the circumstances it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the High Court should not have called for a decision on that issue by the lower appellate court, but should have ordered the determination of the question by the Central Government. 21. In Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 1966 SC 1614 , it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that Article 9 does not use the word migration and deals only with voluntary acquisition of citizenship of a foreign State before the Constitution came into force. Cases of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution have to be dealt with the Government of India under the Citizenship Act, 1955. In this case the ratio laid down in air 1963 SC 645 has been relied upon. 22. Cases of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution have to be dealt with the Government of India under the Citizenship Act, 1955. In this case the ratio laid down in air 1963 SC 645 has been relied upon. 22. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Peer Mohammad, AIR 1963 SC 645 , it was held : (i) that the question whether persons lost citizenship of India under Section 9 (1) having acquired passport from Pakistan Government has to be decided by the Central Government and not by the Court ; and (ii) that Article 7 of the Constitution of India refers to migration which had taken place between the first day of March, 1947 and January 26, 1950. The question about the citizenship of persons migrating to Pakistan from India after January 26, 1950 will have to be determined under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 23. Thus it is evident that the question involved in the above cases which were cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners is alto gether different than the one involved in the case in hand. 24. Resultantly this petition, so far as the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 are concerned, is dismissed, whereas it is allowed with regard to petitioner No. 3. A writ of mandamus is, therefore, issued in her case directing the respondents not to arrest or deport her without having recourse to the above said provisions. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ party allowed. .