Now, s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, provides that if any question arises as to whether an Indian ' citizen has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. Under r. 30 of the rules framed under that Act, the authority to dcdide that question is the Central Government. So the question whether the respondent, an Indian citizen, had acquired Pakistani citizenship cannot be decided by courts. The learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction therefore to come to the finding on the strength of the passport that the respondent, an Indian citizen, had acquired Pakistani citizenship. Nor was there anything before the learned Magistrate to sho IV that the Central Government had decided that the respondent had renoun.ced Indian citizenship and acquired that of Pakistan. The learned Magistrate thought that the fact that the Central Government had refused to extend the respondent's visa proved that it had decided that he had acquired Pakistani nationality. This view again was not warranted. There is nothing to· show that the Central Government had refused to extend the respondent's visa. Even if it had, that would not amount to a decision by it that the respondent, an Indian citizen, had acquired subsequently Pakistani nationality for there may ho such refusal when an applicant for the extension had all along been · a Pakistani national. Furthermore, in order that there may be a decision by the Central Government that an Indian citizen has acquired foreign nationality, an enquiry as laid down in r. 30 of the rules framed under the Citizenship Act has to be made and no such enquiry had at all been made. That being so, it cannot be said that the Central Government had decided that the respondent, an Indian citizen, had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan.
