Burden of proof under the Foreigners Act rests on the person disputing foreigner status; writ court should not decide disputed facts.

Where a person's status as a foreigner is in dispute, section 9 of the Foreigners Act places the burden on that person to prove that he is not a foreigner. The reference to section 9 of the Citizenship Act was misplaced because it concerns termination of citizenship and did not govern the controversy. Section 8 of the Foreigners Act was also inapplicable, as the issue was not the nationality of a person already found not to be an Indian citizen. The status question involved disputed facts requiring evidence and was not fit for determination in writ proceedings under Article 226, so the High Court should not have quashed the deportation order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could quash the order directing the respondent to leave India on the footing that there was no material before the authority and whether, in determining whether the respondent was a foreigner, the burden of proof lay on the respondent under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Analysis: Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, applies where a question arises whether any person is or is not a foreigner, and in such a case the onus of proving that he is not a foreigner lies upon that person. The reference made by the High Court to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, was misplaced, because that provision concerns termination of citizenship in specified circumstances and had no application to the facts. Section 8 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, also did not govern the controversy, since the issue was not the nationality of a person already found not to be an Indian citizen, but whether the respondent was a foreigner at all. The question of the respondent's status involved disputed facts requiring detailed evidence, and was not suitable for determination in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The respondent bore the burden of proving that he was not a foreigner, the High Court erred in quashing the deportation order, and the writ order could not stand.

---