D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by one Sher Mohammad and is directed against the order of the Central Government dated 19th October, 1962 holding that he had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after 26th January, 1950 and before 19th January, 1955. His case has had a chequered career. He succeeded in this Court in State of Punjab v. Sher Mohammad L.P.A. No. 63 of 1960 : : AIR 1962 P&H 333 which gives all the facts in detail. The basis on which he succeeded was that only the Central Government could determine the question about the citizenship and as the order of deportation was passed against him without determining the question of citizenship by the appropriate authority the order was of no consequence.
(2.) AFTER the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal the Central Government served a notice on the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Citizen ship Act. Sub -section (2) of Section 9 is as fellows: (2) 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. The rules that are prescribed for the purpose of Sub -section (2) are to be found in Schedule 3 of the Citizenship Rules and the relevant rules are Rules 4 and 5. The Central Government after obtaining the explanation of the Petitioner has passed the impugned order. The grievance of the Petitioner is that no notice under Section 9 was served on him and that the Central Government had passed the order against him holding him to be a Pakistan national on mala fide grounds. It is also contended that the order of the Central Government is not a speaking order and is merely a stereotyped order and therefore is of no consequence.
(3.) SO far as the first contention of the learned Counsel is concerned, namely, that no notice was served on the Petitioner asking him to show cause why his citizenship should not be terminated is unfounded. In the return filed by the State it is categorically stated that the notice was served on the Petitioner by one Assistant Sub -Inspector Pritam Singh and he handed over to him a copy of that notice. It is also significant that the Petitioner did make a representation to the Central Government. This he could have only done if he had notice that the proceedings under Section 9 were pending against him. He has not disclosed as to from what source he came to know that the proceedings against him were pending under Section 9. All that he has stated is that from a private source he came to know about these proceedings. That source has not been disclosed, that being so, I must accept the statement in the return that Pritam Singh, Assistant Sub -Inspector, served a notice on him and he gave him a copy of the same. Therefore the first contention is repelled.;