Judgment : Initially, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the communication, dated 20.6.2001, of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, instructing the writ petitioner to appear in person, with confirmed Air Ticket to leave India immediately, failing which a warning was issued that he would be prosecuted under the Foreigners Act. The instructions has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is a Srilankan Citizen. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have furnished him with a copy of an order, dated 35. 2001 of the government of India, Ministry of Hone Affairs. New Delhi, directing the State Government to deport the petitioner back to Srilanka or he may be advised to leave India, within 15 days from the date of the above said letter. Contending interalia that the order of the Government of India is in violation of Article 5(c) of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has prayed for an amendment to the prayer in the writ petition, challenging deportation. This Court, by order, dated 12. 2009, allowed the amendment petition in M.P. No.901 of 2009. 2. According to the petitioner, his parents, Palanisamy Chetty and Alamedu Animal, emigrated to India from Srilanka in 1942 and settled down in Madurai. The petitioner was born on 210. 1994 at Madurai and his birth was duly registered in Madurai Municipality. Therefore, by birth, he is an Indian citizen in terms of Article 5 of the Constitution of India. His father died on 13. 1947 at Erskin Hospital, Madurai, leaving his mother, sister and the petitioner. The petitioner has further contended that he did his schooling in Sowrashtra Secondary School, Madurai, and thereafter, he completed his pre-University course in American College, Madurai. Having domiciled in India since 1942 for more than five years prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India, his parents had become citizens of India, in terms of Article 5 of the Constitution of India. They have also set up a textile business under the name and style of “Palanisamy and Company”, at Door No. 2, Jedmuni Koil Street, Madurai. His father had also purchased a house at Door No. 50 Roodal Azhagar Perumal Koil Street, Madurai, on 210. 1945 and all of them were living together in the said house. 3. They have also set up a textile business under the name and style of “Palanisamy and Company”, at Door No. 2, Jedmuni Koil Street, Madurai. His father had also purchased a house at Door No. 50 Roodal Azhagar Perumal Koil Street, Madurai, on 210. 1945 and all of them were living together in the said house. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that being a bachelor, he was residing with his sister, Ms. Kamalavathi, w/o. Mr. N. Rasanayagam, Advocate at Madurai. His name was included in the family card of his brother in law. The petitioner’s name was also included in the Voters List issued by the Election Commission for the years 1973, 1975, 1977, 1988, 1944 and 1996 and that he had exercised his franchise both in parliamentary and assembly elections held during the above said years. She petitioner has also contended that Court proceedings for issuance of a succession certificate in O.P. No.30 of 1948 on the file of the learned first Additional Sessions Judge, would also prove that he is the legal heir of the said Palanisamy Chetty, having a permanent residence in India. The petitioner is carrying on tailoring business under the name and style of “Diana Tailors”, Arasaradi, Madurai. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that all of a sudden, he received a notice, dated 20.6.2001, in I.S.C. No. A10/8088/2000/M from the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, first respondent herein, directing to leave India immediately and that he was also instructed to appear in person before the first respondent with a confirmed Air ticket to Srilanka. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the communication, which has been subsequently, amended as stated supra. .5. Referring to the Death extract, dated 5. 1947, issued by the Health Officer, Madurai Municipality, evidencing the death of his father on 13. 1947, in Erskin Hospital, Madurai Town, Madurai, (2) order of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, in O.P. No. 30 of 1948, for issuance of succession certificate to the legal heirs of his father, late A.T. Palanisamy, (3) Voters list, dated 1. 1973 issued by the Madurai Municipal Corporation, evidencing petitioner’s right to franchise and also the place of residence, (4) Transfer Certificate, dated 6. 1973, issued by the Principal, American College of Madurai, (S) Voters lists, dated 30.10.1975, 212. 1977, 11. 1988 and 10. 1973 issued by the Madurai Municipal Corporation, evidencing petitioner’s right to franchise and also the place of residence, (4) Transfer Certificate, dated 6. 1973, issued by the Principal, American College of Madurai, (S) Voters lists, dated 30.10.1975, 212. 1977, 11. 1988 and 10. 1994, (6) Birth Extract, dated 18. 1988, evidencing the date of irth of the petitioner on 210. 1946 at Door No. 50, Perumal Kovil Street, Madurai, and registration of birth on 11. 1946 in .Madurai Corporation, (7) Inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the family ration card of the year 1988, issued by the Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department (1998-2003) and (8) Voter’s Identity Card issued by the Election Commission, dated 12. 1998, Mr. A.U. Ilango, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the above documents would support the case of the petitioner that at the time of commencement of the Constitution of India, he was born and brought up in India, recognized as a citizen and exercised all the rights guaranteed to a citizen of India. 6. Referring to Article 5 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s parents, who were ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution of India and that when the petitioner was born on 210. 1946, as evident from the Birth Extract registered, on 11. 1946, he is very much an Indian citizen by birth and therefore, the impugned order, dated 35. 2001 of Government of India, Ministry of Affair, New Delhi, directing the State Government to deport the petitioner back to Srilanka and advising him to leave India immediately, is in violation of Article 5(c) of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been recognized as a citizen of India and exercised his franchise from 1973 onwards in various parliamentary and assembly elections. While that be so, it is not known as to how the first respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is a Srilankan citizen, merely on the basis of discreet enquiry, conducted by the Intelligence department. 8. While that be so, it is not known as to how the first respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is a Srilankan citizen, merely on the basis of discreet enquiry, conducted by the Intelligence department. 8. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedar Panday v. Narain Bikrram Sah AIR 1966 SC 160 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once anyone of the requirements in Article 5 of the Constitution of India is established and the domicile of origin, by operation of law at birth is proved, then a legitimate child born in a wed-lock to a living father, receives the domicile of the father, at the time of his birth and therefore, when the petitioner’s parents had domiciled in India, five years preceding the commencement of the Constitution of India from 1942, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was born in India, at the time of commencement of the Constitution of India, the conclusion arrived at by the respondents, on the basis of a discreet enquiry, is apposite to the concepts of domicile and citizenship. .9. According to the learned counsel, the state of mind, or animus manendi, demands that the person whose domicile is the object of the inquiry should have formed a fixed and settled purpose of making his principal or sole permanent home in the country of residence, or, in effect, he should have formed a deliberate intention to settle there. In this regard, he submitted that the petitioner’s parents, who had come down to India in 1942, chose to permanently reside in India from 1942 onwards and that lateron, the petitioner’s father died on 13. 1947 in Erskin Hospital, Madurai Town, Madurai and that his death was also registered on 23. 1947. He further submitted that the proceedings before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in O.P. No.30 of 1948 for issuance of succession certificate, also shows that the legal representatives were continuously living in India, even after the demise of the petitioner’s father on 13. 1947. He therefore, submitted that the petitioner’s parents satisfied Clause (c) of Article 5 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner, cannot be termed as a Srilankan Citizen. 10. 1947. He therefore, submitted that the petitioner’s parents satisfied Clause (c) of Article 5 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner, cannot be termed as a Srilankan Citizen. 10. Placing reliance on a judgment in Abdul Batter Haji Ibramhim Patel v. State of Gujarat AIR 1965 SC 810 , learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a person, who has domiciled in the territory of India, at the commencement of the Constitution and who satisfies any one of the three conditions, specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 5 of the Constitution of India, shall be a citizen of India. He further submitted that the three conditions contained in Article 5 of the Constitution of India, are not cumulative, but they are only alternative. Therefore, he submitted that even if any one of the conditions is satisfied, the person would be very much a citizen, if he had domiciled in the territory of India on 21. 1950. He therefore, submitted that the impugned order reflects total non-application of mind to the legal and factual aspects and that the third respondent has been simply carried away by the discreet, enquiry report submitted by the Police. 11. On the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai and the instructions furnished by the third respondent, Mr. Dhandapani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the discreet enquiry conducted by the Department of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, revealed that the petitioner, a Srilankan, had come to India during 1970 along with the family members of One Mr. Rasanayagam, son of Narayanasamy, hailing from Jaffna, Srilanka and settled in Madurai at Gokulam No.6, Gayathri Street, Duraisamy Nagar, Madurai. On the basis of the report, he submitted that Mr. Rasanayagam is an Advocate and claims to have obtained Indian Citizenship, Indian Passport, Ration Card, Voter’s I.D. Card, etc., through manipulation. The petitioner, bother in law of said Mr. Rasanayagam, had stayed with him for all these years. The report further reads that on the complaint of one Mr. On the basis of the report, he submitted that Mr. Rasanayagam is an Advocate and claims to have obtained Indian Citizenship, Indian Passport, Ration Card, Voter’s I.D. Card, etc., through manipulation. The petitioner, bother in law of said Mr. Rasanayagam, had stayed with him for all these years. The report further reads that on the complaint of one Mr. A. Prasad, an enquiry was conducted, which revealed that the petitioner was involved in indulging and procuring Indian passports and travel documents fraudulently and taking into consideration the overall circumstances and findings recorded, a decision was taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division, Government of India, to ask the State Government to deport the writ petitioner or issue a Leave India notice, subject to the condition that the Government is satisfied with the report of the security agency. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that by letter, dated 17. 2001 of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners Division), Government of India, the Government of Tamil Nadu was requested to conduct an enquiry as to how and on what circumstances, the petitioner was issued with the Voters list. Identity Card, Ration Card and that no reply was received from the State Government so far. He therefore submitted that merely because the petitioner’s name was mentioned in the Voter’s list issued by the Election Commission of India and an Identity Card, that would not confer any right under the Indian Citizenship Act. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner on certain documents would not lend any support to the petitioner, as the same are sought to be cancelled by the department. He further submitted that before issuing the notice, dated 20.6.2001, to leave India or to appear in person before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, with a confirmed Air Ticket to Srilanka, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of being heard and therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. Article 5 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “5. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. Article 5 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “5. Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution; At the commencement of this Constitution every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and- .(a) whowas born in the territory of India? or .(b) (b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India? or .(c) C) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India. 15. Admittedly, the directions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreign Division, New Delhi, dated 35. 2001 is based on a discreet enquiry conducted by the Security Agency on a complaint received from the Ministry. According to the report, the petitioner is a Srilankan National and he had come to India during 1970, along with the family members of Mr. Rasanayagam, S/0. Narayanasamy, hailing from Jaffina, Srilanka and settled down in Madurai at Gokulam, No.6, Gayathri Street, Duraisamy Nagar, Madurai. It is the case of the respondents that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner was reportedly indulging in procuring Indian Passports and travel documents fraudulently and that based on the discreet enquiry report, the State Government was asked to deport the petitioner, subject to the condition that the state Government is satisfied or agreed with the report of the Security Agency. At paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai has contended that on receipt of the notice, dated 20.6.2001, the petitioner did not make any serious objections, but he had only requested a month’s time to comply with the directions and therefore, it is not open to him to turn around and contend that the impugned communication as arbitrary and unconstitutional. In the above said factual background and submission, let me now consider the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. On the question as to whether a person had acquired domicile of his choice in India, the Supreme Court in Kedar Panday v. Narain Bikram Sah (supra), at paragraph 10, has held as follows: “10. In the above said factual background and submission, let me now consider the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. On the question as to whether a person had acquired domicile of his choice in India, the Supreme Court in Kedar Panday v. Narain Bikram Sah (supra), at paragraph 10, has held as follows: “10. She law on the topic is well established but the difficulty is found in it application to varying combination of circumstances in each case. The law attributes to every person at birth a domicil which is called a domicil of origin. This domicil may be changed, and a new domicil, which is called a domicil of choice, acquired, but the two kinds of domicil differ in one respect. The domicil of origin is received by operation of law at birth; the domicil of choice is acquired later by the actual removal of an individual to another country accompanied by him animus manendi. The domicile of origin is determined by the domicile, at the time of the child’s birth, of that person upon whom he is legally dependent. A legitimate child born in a wedlock to a living father receives the domicil of the father at the time of the birth; a posthumous legitimate child receives that of the mother at that time. As regards change of domicile, any person not under disability may at any time change his existing domicile and acquire for himself a domicile of choice by the fact of residing in a country other than that of his domicile of origin with the intention of continuing to reside there indefinitely. For this purpose residence is a mere physical fact, and means no more than personal presence in a locality, regarded apart from any of the circumstances attending it. If this physical fact is accompanied by the required state of mind, neither its character nor its duration is in any way material. The state of mind, or animus manendi, which is required demands that the person whose domicile is the object of the inquiry should have formed a fixed and settled purpose of making his principal or sole permanent home in the country of residence, or, in effect, he should have formed a deliberate intention to settle there. The state of mind, or animus manendi, which is required demands that the person whose domicile is the object of the inquiry should have formed a fixed and settled purpose of making his principal or sole permanent home in the country of residence, or, in effect, he should have formed a deliberate intention to settle there. It is also well established that the onus of proving that a domicile has been chosen in substitution for the domicile of origin lies upon those who assert that the domicile of origin has been lost. The domicile of origin continues unless a fixed and settled intention of abandoning the first domicile and acquiring another as the sole domicile is clearly shown (see Winans v. Attorney-General 1904 AC 287). In Hunro v. Munro in 7 CI. 6 Fin 867, Lord (Tottenham states the Rule as follows: “The domicile of origin must prevail until the party has not only acquired another, but has manifested and carried into execution an intention of abandoning his former domicile, and acquiring another as his sole domicile. She effect this abandonment of the domicile of origin, and substitute another in its place, it required animo et facto, that is, the choice of a place, actual residence in the place then chosen, and that it should be the principal and permanent residence, the spot where he had placed laram rerumque ac fortunarum suanun summam. In fact, there must be both residence and intention. Residence alone has no affect, per se, though it may be most important as a ground from which to infer intention.” In Aikman v. Aikman 3 Mac Q; HLC 854, Lord Campbell, has discussed the question of the affect on domicile of an intention to return to the native country, where such intention is attributable to an undefined and remote contingency. He said: “If a man is settled in a foreign country, engaged in some permanent, pursuit requiring his residence there, a mere intention to return to his native country on a doubtful contingency, will not prevent such a residence in a foreign country from putting an and to his domicile of origin. He said: “If a man is settled in a foreign country, engaged in some permanent, pursuit requiring his residence there, a mere intention to return to his native country on a doubtful contingency, will not prevent such a residence in a foreign country from putting an and to his domicile of origin. But a residence in foreign country for pleasure, lawful or illicit, which residence may be changed at any moment, without the violation of any contract or any duty, and is accompanied by an intention of going back to reside in the place of birth, or the happening of an event which in the course of nature must speedily happen, cannot be considered as indicating the purpose to love and die abroad.” .17. On the question of determination of the status of a person, with reference to Article 5 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 5 of the judgment, in Abdul Sattar Haji Ibramhim Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra), has held as follows: .“5. The true legal position in regard to the statue of a citizen like the appellant is not in doubt. Article 5 of the Constitution provides that any person who has his domicile in the territory of India at the commencement of the Constitution and who satisfies one of the three conditions specified by clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said article shall be a citizen of India. The three conditions are alternative and not cumulative, and so, if any one of those conditions is satisfied, a person would be deemed to be a citizen of India if he had hs domicile in the territory of India on 21. 1950. It is, however, important to bear in mind that the basic condition is that the person must have his domicile in India on the date when the Constitution came into force. If that condition is satisfied, the person must show that he was either born in India, or either of his parents were born in India or he had been ordinarily resident in India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement.” 18. Though the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners Division), has come to a conclusion that the petitioner is a Srilantean National, on the basis of discreet enquiry into a complaint, yet in their instructions, dated 11. Though the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners Division), has come to a conclusion that the petitioner is a Srilantean National, on the basis of discreet enquiry into a complaint, yet in their instructions, dated 11. 2010, have stated that the State Government to deport the petitioner, if the State Government is satisfied or agreed with the report of the Security Agency. No materials have been placed before this Court as to whether the State Government is satisfied or agreed with the report of the Security Agency. Except the order of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, no documents have been placed before this Court. There is no indication in the impugned order as to whether the birth certificate of the petitioner, dated 18. 1988 issued by the Corporation of Madurai, evidencing his Date of Birth, as 210. 1946, i.e., before the Constitution of India, registered on 11. 1946 with Madurai Corporation, was considered by Government of India. There are also no materials in the counter affidavit or in the impugned order to show as to whether the respondents have considered the status of the petitioner, with reference to the requirements under Article 5 of the Constitution of India. 19. Article 5 of the Constitution of India states that at the commencement of the Constitution, every person, who has his domicile in the territory of India and who has been ordinarily resides in the territory of India, for not more than five years, immediately proceeding the commencement of the Act, shall be a citizen of India. It is the contention of the petitioner that his parents have come to India in the year 1942 and that his father died on 13. 1947 in Erskin Hospital Madurai. The death of his father is support by the Certificate, dated 5. 1947, issued by the Health Department, Madurai City. The proceedings of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, 9. 1968, in favour of the petitioner’s mother and himself, being the Legal Representatives and her deposition before the O.P. No. 30 of 1948, shows that at the death of his father, the petitioner, was 5 months old. Exhibit A-1 produced before the said Court, is the Municipal Birth extract and that the petitioner’s nother had been called upon to give cash security on 4. 1945 in respect of petitioner’s minor share. .20. Exhibit A-1 produced before the said Court, is the Municipal Birth extract and that the petitioner’s nother had been called upon to give cash security on 4. 1945 in respect of petitioner’s minor share. .20. The impugned orders have been passed mainly on the basis of a discreet enquiry by the Security Agency without any reference to the documents stated supra. If on the basis of any discreet enquiry, the status of a person has to be decided, without reference to the constitutional provisions and the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard, then this Court is of the considered view that there would be an infringement of constitutional eights of a person. If he is ultimately found to be an Indian Citizen. If the petitioner had come to India in 1970 along with his brother in law to India, as contended by the respondents, then they should have placed some materials in support of their contention. A discreet enquiry may at best, throw some information about a person’s identity, but that cannot be the sole basis and foundation to arrive at the subjective satisfaction by the Central Government that the petitioner as a Srilankan National. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the status of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the Government of India, Home Affairs (Foreigner’s Division), ought to have conducted a thorough enquiry into the matter, with reference to the evidence relating to Birth extract and the decisions of the Supreme Court, on the aspect off domicile and place of birth at the time of commencement of the Constitution of India. 21. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court in Abdul Batter Haji Ibramhim Patel v. State of Gujarat (supra) case, has held that Article 5 of the Constitution provides that any person who has his domicile in the territory of India at the commencement of the Constitution and who satisfies anyone of the three conditions specified by clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said Article shall be a citizen of India. The three conditions are alternative and not cumulative, And therefore, if any one of those conditions is satisfied, then the person would be deemed to be a citizen of India if he had his domicile in the territory of India on 21. 1960. The three conditions are alternative and not cumulative, And therefore, if any one of those conditions is satisfied, then the person would be deemed to be a citizen of India if he had his domicile in the territory of India on 21. 1960. The Apex Court has further observed that it is, however, important to bear in mind that the basic condition is that the person must have his domicile in India on the date when the Constitution came into force. If that condition is satisfied, then the person must show that he was either born in India, or either of his parents were born in India or he had been ordinarily resident in India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement. 22. It is also to be noted that though the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai, has denied the petitioner’s contention that the parents of the petitioner have migrated from Srilanka and settled in Madurai. There is evidence to show that the petitioner’s father died in Madurai Hospital in the year 1947. The aspect of domicile and the intention of the petitioner’s parents to settle down in India permanently and the law on the issue as declared by the Supreme Court in Kedar Panday v. Narain Bikrram Sah (supra) case, has not been considered. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders have been passed, without reference to the Constitutional provisions and the law declared by the Supreme Court and therefore, deserves to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. The respondents are at liberty to conduct a detailed enquiry into the status of the petitioner, if so advised and if any enquiry is ordered, the petitioner may be permitted to produce all the documents in his possession to substantiate his status. While determining the status, the respondents shall take into consideration the conditions in Article 5 of the Constitution of India and the law declared by the Apex Court. 23. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.