ATTAULLAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 a direction from this court to the respondents for deciding the question of his being Indian citizen and to hold him and 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 petitioner's having acquired citizenship of another country or ceasing to be an Indian citizen is to be determined under Section 9 of The 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 Rule 3 of the Sec. III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 which lays down: