April, 1990 and residing permanently in Nepal shall be the citizen of Nepal by birth. Pursuant to Section 4(2) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 application had to be submitted prior to the Constituent Assembly elections and pursuant to Section 4(3) in case anyone is unable to submit as such due to any special reason, he or she has to apply within 2 years from the date of commencement of this Act, viz. 26th November, 2006, however, the petitioner has not come into submit application within that time limitation. Pursuant to the provision of Rule 3(6) of Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2006 in the column of the certificate of citizenship of the person, whose fatherhood or motherhood has not been settled, where the name of father or mother is to be specified shall indicate the matter that the fatherhood or motherhood has not been traced out and specify the name, surname and address of the guardian. But, the petitioner has not accepted such citizenship certificate and even the Office cannot locate her paternity despite various processes. Therefore, as there is no barrier in granting her citizenship certificate pursuant to Rule 3(6) of Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2006 as well as Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006, this writ petition deserves to be quashed. international instruments to which Nepal is a party. Therefore, necessary orders should be issued in the name of respondents making interpretation so as to provide citizenship to petitioner Sabina Damai and other persons aggrieved like her. Learned Joint Attorney Mr. Yubaraj Subedi representing on behalf of the respondent Government of Nepal argued that Government of Nepal has not discriminated to any of the Nepali citizens like the petitioner in providing citizenship. For the exercise of substantive rights as claimed by the petitioner, some procedural formalities also have to be fulfilled. As Sabina Damai has declined to obtain citizenship mentioning that the fatherhood has not been traced out and various processes were adopted to trace out name, surname and address of her father. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted that she has been denied to provide citizenship. Hence, the writ petition has to be quashed. Now, upon listening to the above arguments, it has to be decided whether or not the writ as sought by the petitioner should be issued? In this case, it has been obvious that the petitioner Sabina Damai is 18 years old daughter of a Nepali citizen Ganga Maya Damai, resident of Lamidanda V. D. C of Dolakha district. It seems from the case file that even her mother has been unable to mention who her father was. The respondent Ministry of Home Affairs has not submitted its written response as seen from the case file. In the present writ petition duly scheduled in the daily cause list and presented before this Bench the documents enclosed in the case file have been reviewed. Learned advocates representing the petitioners Ms. Mira Dhungana and Ms. Sushma Gautam pleaded that there is no dispute in the fact that the petitioner Sabina Damai is a daughter of a Nepali citizen Ganga Maya Damai. The whereabouts of her father is not known. It is obvious that Sabina Damai is citizen of Nepal by descent according the provision of the Article 8(2) of Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 and Section 3(1) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006. There is a provision that such persons, whose paternity or maternity is not establish, can obtain citizenship according to the process as prescribed in the Rule 3(3) of Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2006. However, when Sabina fulfilling the process mentioned above and applied for citizenship from her mother’s name had submitted the application to the District Administration Office, Dolakha, the respondent Chief District Officer ordered orally and did not provide her citizenship and thus she has been forced to live without citizenship and as stateless and resultantly deprived from constitutional right of obtaining citizenship and also deprived from legal rights that are available to the citizen. The act of respondent is against the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, Nepal Citizenship Act and Rules, 2006 as well as The case file also includes a Report of Public Field Inquiry conducted on 28th July, 2010 which reads that: “The mother of the petitioner came to Kathmandu in search of work when she was 22 and used to live in rented room at Jawalakhel. There she had sexual relationship with the laborer working therein and became pregnant from which the petitioner was born. As she had sexual relationship with various persons and therefore, even she cannot identify from whose physical relation the petitioner conceived. The paternity of Sabina Damai has not been known even to her mother too. However, it has been corroborated from Nepali citizenship certificate bearing No 1353 issued by District Administration Office, Dolakha on 13th May, 1988 that Sabina Dami’s mother Ganga Maya is a bona fide Nepali citizen born in Lamidanda V. D. C. 2 of Dolakha district on 19th January, 1964. Thus, there is no dispute that the mother of Sabina Damai is a Nepali citizen by descent. From the recommendation of Lamidanda V. D. C dated 25th July, 2010 and the Report of Public Field Inquiry, it has been proved that the petitioner Sabina Damai was born in Lamidanda VDC-2, Dolakha district on 12th November, 1992. It has been obvious that the present writ petition has been filed because the petitioner has not been able to obtain Nepali citizenship certificate until 48 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION