women like that of men. Nepal has also ratified and accessed the above instruments related to human rights. Section 9(1) of the Nepal Treaties Act, 1990 has clearly stated that: In case of the provisions of a treaty to which Nepal has become a party following its ratification accession, acceptance or approval by the Parliament is inconsistent with the provisions of prevailing laws, the inconsistent provision of law shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency for the purpose of that treaty, and the provisions of the treaty shall be enforceable as good as Nepal laws. Therefore, the provisions of these treaties are valid as Nepal laws and are binding for Nepal. The provisions relating to citizenship enshrined in the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 and Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2006 are consistent with the above mentioned international instruments related to human rights and there is no any type of discrimination between men and women as regard to obtaining citizenship. has conferred the right to obtain citizenship either from the father or mother’s name and has thus ‘descent’ included both of mother and father. Hence, the interpretation that the petitioner has to seek citizenship certificate only from the address of his father shall be contradictory to the letter and spirit Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 as well as other statutes. It would also be contrary to the international standards of human rights. Therefore, as there is unanimity that the petitioner Ranjit Thapa is a bona fide Nepali citizen and is qualified according to the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 and Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2006 to obtain Nepali citizenship certificate by descent which is corroborated even by the written responses of respondents and as such though the addresses of his mother and father are separate, an order of mandamus is hereby issued in the name of respondents to provide him citizenship certificate from any one address out of the addresses of his mother or father as per his choice in case he submits an application along with the recommendation of concerned body and fulfills the prescribed procedure. Let the notice of this order be served to the respondents and the case file be duly returned after writing it off the registry. 8. In the present case, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a Nepali citizen and Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 and Citizenship Rules 2006 have provided the right to petitioner Ranjit Thapa to make choice whether to obtain citizenship from the name of father or mother which has been accepted by the District Administration Office Kathmandu in its written response. However, to consider about the plea of that Office that ‘descent’ denote ‘of the father’ and as the father’s address is recorded at Kabhrepalanchowk district, citizenship certificate cannot be obtained from Kathmandu district. Section 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 I concur with the aforementioned opinion. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Koirala [Done on Friday, 26th June, 2009] Bench Officer: Mr. Narayan Prasad Parajuli 21 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION