the Rule of the same; hence, present writ petition should be revoked. Affidavit of the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers reads as above. mothers’ names. Joint-attorney, Mr. Shyam Kumar Bhattarai, present on behalf of the opponent, the government of Nepal, pleaded, stating that guideline had been given to provide citizenship by mother’s name. Father’s name had been mentioned in the present case; in this condition District Administration Office had felt uneasy; however, in the context of the case of Sabina Damai on behalf of the Government, as well; being committed to the issue of providing citizenship by mother’s name, the government had issued out the circular to all the District Administration Offices; hence, the present writ should be revoked. As per the prior order issued by the esteemed Court for providing citizenship by mother’s name, circulars have already been sent to all the Chief District Officers to easily provide citizenship certificate by mother’s name by fulfilling rule and work procedure of Nepal Citizenship Act and Rule if children who were born in Nepal from Nepalese citizen mother come to ask for citizenship by mother’s name; Affidavit of the respondent, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, reads as above; and, whether the father of the petitioners is from home country or a foreigner has not been traced and marriage registration of the parents is not available and rule to be fulfilled as per Citizenship Act and Rule has not been fulfilled; hence, citizenship has not been provided. Affidavit of Chief District Officer, Ratna Raj Pandeya, on behalf of District Administration Office, Kathmandu reads as above. Upon hearing including the pleadings presented by the learned on behalf of the petitioners and respondents, while studying the documents attached to the document file, is order supposed to be issued as per petition claimed or not? It seems that decision is to be made regarding it. Upon considering towards the decision, main petition claim is found to have been that the petitioners had furnished application to the respondent, District Administration Office, for the sake of citizenship upon getting recommendation from the Office of Ward No. 32 of Kathmandu Metropolitan City as per the provision existing in the Citizenship Act and Rule for the sake of obtaining citizenship through the name of the mother, Anita Sapkota, but were returned, without even registering the application, orally saying that they could not obtain citizenship; hence, appropriate order including mandamus should be issued on the name of respondents giving order to provide the petitioners with the citizenship of Nepal by mother’s name. Affidavit of the respondent, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, is seen to have been that circular had already been sent, on the names of all the Chief District Officers, as per prior order made by the esteemed Court to provide citizenship by mother’s name, in order to easily provide citizenship certificate by mother’s name by fulfilling the rule and work procedures of the Nepal Citizenship Act and Rule if children, who were born in Nepal from the Nepalese citizen mother, come to ask for the citizenship by mother’s name; and the affidavit of District Administration Office, Kathmandu is seen to have been that it was not traced whether the petitioners’ father was a from home country or a foreigner and that parents marriage registration was not done, moreover, the rule to be fulfilled as per Citizenship Act and Rule had not been fulfilled; hence, citizenship was not given. No decision or order has been issued by this Ministry regarding whether or not the writ petitioners are to be conferred with Nepalese citizenship certificate; hence present writ petition should be revoked. Affidavit of Sushil Jung Bahadur Rana, Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, on behalf of the same, reads as above. In the present case that has been submitted before the this Bench today upon being inducted to the daily cause lists as per rule, advocates Ms. Mira Dhungana and Ms. Gautam, present on behalf of the petitioners, pleaded, stating that there was no dispute that the petitioners were the children of Nepalese citizen Anita Sapkota, and that their father, Shamim Siddiqi, had disappeared; hence, these petitioners were the citizens of Nepal by descent as per the provisions of Article 8 (2) (B), of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, Clause 3 (1) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063; hence, the petitioners had furnished application before the opponent, Kathmandu District Administration Office, for the sake of obtaining citizenship by mother’s name upon fulfilling the process of Rule 3 (3) of Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063, but, as per oral order of the opponent Chief District Officer, these petitioners had been rendered into the condition of without citizenship and statelessness, by not providing citizenship certificate, and hence were deprived of including the legal right to be obtained as a citizen as well as the constitutional right to obtain citizenship; hence, necessary order should be issued on the name of the opponents giving mandamus order to provide the petitioners with the citizenship by mother’s name, interpreting that citizenships should be provided for the other victims like them through In this, from the spot investigation received from the Office of Ward No. 32 of Kathmandu Metropolitan City and from the petition description attached to the document file, it is seen that between the petitioners, Sajda Sapkota, on 2044/3/14 (June 28, 99 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION