Prajapati Sharma is not seen to have been the patronage as per law is against the aforementioned legal provision as well; hence the aforementioned decision should be revoked. principle is the equal treatment for the equal and different treatment for the unequal. The expectation of unequal treatment unequally is not considered possible and essential. From the perspective of constitutional procedural science, such provision of the equality is kept for the sake of making the state more accountable under the state’s responsibility of people’s welfare. Upon seeing the affidavit of the respondent, Home Ministry, description is seen to have been mentioned that as per the decision of the date of 2069/10/5 (January 18, 2013 A.D.) of the level of honorable Deputy Prime Minister and Home Ministry, circular was already made to all the regional and District Administration Offices on date 2069/10/7 (January 20, 2013 A.D.), stating to issue citizenship in an easy way so as not to be against the Interim Constitution, 2063 and Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 and Rule, 2063; the children found within the borders of Nepal, but having paternity maternity not known, from the identification of the patron, and to leave the Chapter of parents empty without mentioning anything by just keeping the issue of the parents being untraced in the record of the Office, letting it happen as per upon finding out paternity maternity later; hence, the present writ petition should be revoked. In Article 22 (1) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063, a constitutional provision is seen to have been made including that every child shall have the right of his/her identity and name. The issue of the children’s identity is seen to have been developed as the content of human right by being transferred from the parents’ rights. Likewise, the issue of their rights has been transferred in the responsibility of the state as well from the parents. By raising the dispute of public litigation, there is not dispute that the petitioner has entered the Court by laying claim for the revocation of the Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063 and Point No. 10 (7) of Citizenship Certificate Distribution Directives, 2063. Upon looking into the provision of Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 by keeping at the same place, equal provision is seen to have been made, stating that every child found within the borders of Nepal, having paternity maternity not known, shall be considered a citizen of Nepal on the basis of descent until his/her father or mother is not found out or traced. From this constitutional or legal provision, every person found within the borders of Nepal, but having paternity and maternity not known, is seen to be able to obtain citizenship on the basis of descent. Actually, the Article 13 of the Constitution has expressed commitment that nobody shall be deprived of the equal protection of the law. The aforementioned Article is seen to have been connected with the concept that all the citizens are equal in the eye of law. In general sense, not to discriminate on any basis such as religion, color, gender, caste, ethnicity among persons to persons is equality. In the context of fundamental rights, the principle of equality is linked with the state actions. To carry on the equality in the use and treatment of the law by any person or group is the purpose of the equality; hence, to reach up to the same status from different statuses or to search for the equality in the consequence is also considered as another aspect of the equality. To show equal treatment in the eye of law is a procedural equality, whereas, to obtain equality in the consequence is a substantial equality. To show equal treatment among the equal and to show unequal treatment among the unequal is the essence of equality. In the present dispute, information is seen to have been provided on date 2070/4/14 (July 29, 2013 A.D.) with the description that paternity/maternity of the petitioner, Amrit Kumar Sharma, is not seen to have been traced till now. Because the paternity and maternity have not been identified, application is seen to have been furnished in the District Administration Office, through the patronage of his patron, Prajapati Sharma ( Timsina) by attaching the documents including the photocopy of his citizenship. In the application form, the District Administration Office, Kathmandu has not mentioned the parents’ names and address of the petitioner in the application form; and Prajapati Sharma (Timsina), so-called his patron, is not seen to have obtained the patronage from any authorized body to nurture and provide education and instruction as per prevailing law; it is not seen right to confer him the citizenship as per Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 and same Rule, 2063. This principle of the equality considers all as equal before the law by deeming consequence as secondary and stressing on the procedure; it is also called formal equality in constitutional procedural science. In the use of general law and in other treatment, the state had also better not discriminate among its citizens on any or all bases such as caste, ethnicity, region, language, religion, color, gender or gender identity, social origin. This principle implies the norm that all are equal before the law; nobody shall have the provision of prerogative or immunity and all shall be equal in the use of general law. This checks the right of the government to apply discretion in the use of law. The principal base of this While looking into the Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of 88 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION