dated 1st September, 2008 stated that Article 8(2) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 provides ‘that at the commencement of this Constitution any person who has his or her permanent domicile in Nepal and whose father or mother was a citizen of Nepal at his or her birth shall be deemed to be the citizen of Nepal by descent.’ Moreover, pursuant to Section 3 (1) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006, it has been clearly provided that “ A person born at the time when his/her father or mother is a citizen of Nepal, shall be a citizen of Nepal by descent. Likewise, the official designated by Section 9 of the same Act shall provide citizenship upon fulfillment of procedure pursuant to Rule 3 of Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2006. No legal restriction has been imposed to this course. As the opponent petitioner has submitted application before an unconcerned District Administration Office, he could not obtain citizenship certificate which he has himself accepted in his petition. The legal procedure prescribed by law has not been fulfilled in his application. If any person for his convenience does not follow the process and procedure prescribed by law to avail or use facilities used by common people it will also be against the spirit of rule of law. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner is not lawful and therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. It is not clear why other respondents have filed this writ petition based on what type of locus standi. If the other respondents have filed this writ petition due to the violation of petitioner Ranjit Thapa’s fundamental rights, they do not have locus standi to file this petition. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be quashed. Hence, the writ needs to be quashed also on the basis of question over jurisdiction.” The written response submitted on behalf of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Constituent Assembly stated that the applicant has not been able to clarify which action of this Ministry violated his constitutional rights. Pursuant to Section 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 and Article 8(2) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, any person can obtain citizenship certificate from his/her mother’s name. Only the processes and procedures prescribed by law have to be followed. Hence, the writ as sought by the petitioner need not be issued and the writ petition has to be quashed. In the present writ petition scheduled in daily cause list and presented before this bench for delivering judgment as per the rule, going through the case file and listening to the arguments of learned advocates representing on behalf of the petitioner viz. Mr. Narendra Pathak, Ms. Mira Dhungana and Ms. Sushma Gautam who pleaded that Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 has provided that citizenship certificate can be obtained in the name of mother in case father does not confer or a person can obtain citizenship certificate in the name of either mother or father. Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 and various international treaties, to which Nepal is a party/signatory, have also ensured the condition that no children shall remain stateless. When the petitioner submitted application for citizenship to District Administration Office, Kathmandu to obtain citizenship certificate from the name of mother after his father denied to confer him citizenship, along with the field inquiry report, recommendation of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, birth certificate and the mother’s citizenship certificate issued from Kathmandu district. The Chief District Officer returned the petitioner without issuing citizenship certificate asserting that ‘descent’ denotes ‘of the father side’ and as his father’s address is at Kabhrepalanchowk district, citizenship certificate cannot be issued from Kathmandu district. Therefore, the writ of mandamus should be issued in the name of respondents to provide the petitioner the citizenship certificate from either from the name of mother or father as per his choice in case he approaches with the necessary recommendation. Likewise, the written response submitted on behalf of Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs stated that as regard the pleas of writ petitioners, the Nepali citizens who have fulfilled the prescribed terms and process prescribed by prevailing laws are entitled to obtain Nepali citizenship certificates from the concerned agency and as such this writ petition needs to be quashed as it lacks legal grounds. The written response submitted on behalf of the District Administration Office, Kathmandu states that in order to ensure easy availability of Nepali citizenship certificates, a policy of distributing Nepali citizenship certificates from all the 75 District Administration Offices has been pursued. Section 3 (1) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 has clearly provided that “A person born at the time when his/ her father or mother is a citizen of Nepal, shall be a citizen of Nepal by descent. The citizenship of the applicant’s father is issued from Kabhrepalanchowk district and the address of his mother after her marriage rests with that of the husband’s one. Hence, the applicant is entitled to obtain Nepali citizenship certificate from the Kabhrepalanchowk district itself. Learned Joint Government Attorney Mr. Kiran Poudyal representing the respondent Government of Nepal argued that Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 itself has provided that citizenship certificate can be obtained in the name of either mother or father. The petitioner of this writ petition has not been denied to provide citizenship certificate. Since his father’s address is at Kabhrepalanchowk district, in case the petitioner submits application in that district along with the recommendation, then citizenship 19 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION