name of respondents to file a written reply via the Office of Attorney General within 15 days of receipt of this notice, excluding the travel period. Let the Office of Attorney General be also intimated of this order and let the case be submitted upon the receipt of written reply or upon expiry of the above deadline. verified that the petitioners are indeed offspring of the said father or other proof, the petitioners have resorted to filing a false petition alleging that the District Administration Office orally declined them to provide citizenship certificate. Hence, I pray that the writ petition be struck down. The Bench studied the documents enclosed in case file in the present case that was duly submitted this Bench as per the daily cause list. The order by as Single Bench of this Court read that: As this case seems to be appropriate for speedy settlement upon considering the gravity of subject matter, preferential status for fixing court hearing date is hereby granted to the matter as per Rule 63(3) (f5) Supreme Court Rules, 1992. Learned Advocate Mira Dhungana, who was present on behalf of the writ petitioners argued that: The petitioners are offspring of parents Madhav Nagarkoti and Dhana Nagarkoti. The petitioner have already completed 16 years of age having born on 2048-10-07 (31-01-1992) and 2049-11-10 (2102-1993) respectively. Both are offspring of Nepali citizens. Their father went missing post their birth. Article 8 (2b) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 expressly provides that a person whose father or mother was a Nepali citizen at the time of his or her birth shall be a Nepali citizen by descent. The said constitutional arrangement is also imbibed by Section 3(1) of the Citizenship Act, 2006 as well as Rule 3(1) of the Citizenship Rules, 2006. When the liabilities incurred by the international treaties and conventions concerning nationality and citizenship have been domesticated into the Nepali laws, as the writ petitioners seem to be son and daughter of Nepali citizen mother, they have to attain citizenship certificate, as soon as they fulfill the age and procedure prescribed by the law. In a similar writ petition involving Petitioner Sabina Damai Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs et.al. (Ne. Ka. Pa. 2068, Issue 2, Decision No. 8557, p. 247) a mandamus has been issued by the Court in the name of District Administration Office, Kathmandu for providing a daughter born in Nepal from a Nepali citizen mother, citizenship of Nepal as per the laws. Hence, as the writ petitioners in this case have been offspring of Nepali parents, let the Court issue a mandamus in the name of respondents causing them to grant them citizenship by descent in the name of their mother. The written reply filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs read that: The writ petition of respondents is faked. As the entire citizens are endowed with a natural right to obtain citizenship as per the laws, the Ministry has already issued a circular to its subordinate offices on 2068-05-05 (22-08-2011) to issue citizenship certificate even in the name of mother by fulfilling all the due process of law. As no act of this Ministry has breached the fundamental rights of the petitioners, an interim order and writ need not be ordered in case of this Ministry as demanded in the petition. The writ is quashable. Likewise, the written reply of Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, Government of Nepal read that: When the basic fact that why this Office has to be made respondent on account of which duty it failed to perform in pursuance of Constitution and laws, this petition is quashable in the first instance as this Office lacks any type of affinity with the matter of dispute. With respect to the issue of awarding citizenship certificate in the name of mother, as a directive order was issued by the Court in the name of Ministry of Home Affairs also, in a writ petition involving Petitioner Sabina Damai Vs. this Office et.al. (Writ No. 0703 of the year 2067) which instructed to provide citizenship of Nepal to the petitioner from her mother’s name as per the laws, this Office dispatched a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs vide Ref No. 289, dated 2068-03-06 (20-06-2011) reminding the implementation of the order. Consequently, the Ministry on 2068-05-05 (22-08-2011) issued a circular to the entire District Administration Offices vide a letter whose C.C copy was also received at this Office. Hence, mandamus need not be ordered over the same issue, as such, let the writ petition of petitioners be struck down. Learned Joint Government Attorney Gopal Prasad Rijal, present on behalf of respondent Government of Nepal also, argued that: Government of Nepal is not involved in meting discrimination to the Nepali citizens like the petitioners in granting citizenship. The petitioners are first required to fulfill some procedural formalities in order to obtain citizenship. They were told that they shall be awarded citizenship once they produce relation verifying certificate that would verify that Madhav Nagarkoti whom they have cited as their father, is indeed one and other proof. Currently, they have failed to show who their father is in the absence of submission of Nepali citizenship certificate of their father that would prove that he was indeed a Nepali The written reply of Chief District Officer on behalf of District Administration Office, Kathmandu also read that: Citizenship by descent has been provided effortlessly in the event of filing a valid application by enclosing the documents as per Sections 3 and 8(1) of the Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006, so as to obtain Nepali citizenship certificate. Without submitting a relationship verifying certificate that would have 68 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION