ground of equality. It cannot be said otherwise that upon abiding by the rule, process and procedure determined in the Citizenship Act and Rule, the party, who requests to obtain citizenship shall, have to furnish application by rule to the body concerned. Likewise, it cannot be right to say otherwise that by fulfilling the process of law, the body concerned, too, shall have to provide recommendation. The opponent petitioner cannot clearly mention the matter that application congruent to rule was furnished to the body concerned for the sake of recommendation by fulfilling the rule, process and procedures determined in the law. In this condition, it cannot be said that the officials, who have legal duty to make recommendation of the citizenship and who provide citizenship certificate by remaining under the law, should provide the opponent petitioners by ignoring the rule, process and procedure determined in the law. Upon looking into the context of issue regarding conferring the citizenship of Nepal by mother’s name, in writ petition of writ No. 0703 of the year 2067, having including Sabina Damai as petitioner versus including this Office as opponent, directive order was issued by esteemed Supreme Court on date 2067/11/15 (February 27, 2011 A.D.) and hence, 3 point circulation was sent to all District Administration Offices by this Office for the sake of its implementation; in the context of this issue, it does not appear that condition exists to issue order from the esteemed Court. In connection to the other petition claim, it shall be clear from the affidavits of body/lien on posts concerned. Hence, from the aforementioned ground and reason, condition does not exist to issue any order on the name of this Office as per claim of the opponent petitioner; hence, the opponent’s writ petition should be revoked. Affidavit of the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers reads as above. presented the pleading stating that there is no dispute in the fact that the petitioner is a Nepalese citizen by descent as per prevailing Constitution and Act and Rule relating to citizenship. Jogendra Basnet, the husband of the petitioner, Yashu Maya and father of the petitioner, Bijay Basnet, has been presently disappeared and has not been traced even upon searching for and investigating, the petitioner, Bijay Basnet, has been provided with patronage by his mother by nurturing; in such a situation, when Bijay Basnet demanded recommendation of the local body from Lalitpur Municipality, Ward No. 13, wishing to obtain Nepalese citizenship certificate with the name and address of his mother, Yashu Maya Budhathoki Basnet; in this condition, the aforementioned Ward Office refused to be provided with recommendation; this act is against including the rule and procedure directives relating to citizenship. Citizenship has become a matter of a person’s identity and right; hence, because local body has refused to fulfill the duty to be performed by it pursuant to law, condition has been created in which Nepalese descent is to be deprived of obtaining Nepalese citizenship certificate. In the condition that the Constitution has ensured a person, who is qualified to obtain Nepalese citizenship by descent, to obtain the citizenship of Nepal so as to have identity through the name of any one of the father or the mother, the act meted out to refuse to carry on its duty by a body of the state mechanism so as to pose obstruction in the aforementioned constitutional right of the citizen is extremely unjust; hence, there is the condition that the petitioner Bijay Chhetri is rendered to have been deprived of the constitutional right to obtain his citizenship. Though the mother of the petitioner, Yashu Maya, was born under the Okhaldhunga district, they are presently residing in Lalitpur district, Lalitpur Municipality, Ward No. 13; in this situation, the act of furthering the process of obtaining citizenship from the same district by her child is congruent to law; hence, mandamus order should be issued on the name of the opponent to provide or get the citizenship provided by mother’s name as per petition claim. Similarly, learned joint attorney, Mr. Kiran Paudel, present on behalf of the opponents including the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, pleaded stating that though existing Constitution, Act and Rule has put no restriction to the petitioner, Bijay Basnet, on the issue of obtaining citizenship of Nepal by mother’s name; the procedure prescribed must be fulfilled for this. But, in the present dispute, condition appears that the petitioners are not seen to have furnished the process for the sake of obtaining citizenship by fulfilling process as per this. It is mentioned that the permanent address of the parents of the By remaining under Section (B) of Sub-article 2 of Article 8 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063, Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063, Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063 and the directives formed under these, the Government of Nepal is providing Nepalese citizenship certificate by descent, and no Nepalese citizen has been deprived of obtaining citizenship by mother’s name as per aforementioned law; the writ petition filed regarding conferring the citizenship is seen to be meaningless; hence, it should be revoked. Affidavit of Ministry of Law, Justice, Constituent Assembly and Parliamentary Affairs reads as above. In the present writ petition that has been submitted before this Bench upon being inducted in cause list for the sake of decision, pleadings have been heard which was made by advocates Meera Dhungana and Ms. Sushma Gautam, present on behalf of petitioner, 80 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION