S. No. Writ No. Decision/ Order Date, Publication No. Name of Plaintiff and Defendant Case Details Summary of the decision Office, Kathmandu as per Sub-clause (2) of Article 107 of the Constitution, stating to get the citizenship provided as per law. No decision is found to have been pronounced by the District Administration Office either, upon whether or not the petitioner shall obtain the citizenship as per the application furnished by the petitioner for the sake of citizenship. If any condition is seen that the petitioner shall not obtain the citizenship, it is the duty of the opponent, District Administration Office, to assist the Court by sending affidavit and authorized documents by mentioning the base and reason of that. By defying the Court order by not sending even the affidavit, District Administration Office, Kathmandu is seen to have not extended the support in the accomplishment of the justice. The defiant Office and its Chief who have not sent the affidavit along with reason and authorized documents as per demanded are supposed to be irresponsible and undisciplined. Such actions can never be acceptable. Send by writing to the official, who made the decision pertaining to the petitioner’s citizenship on date 2070/4/9 (July 24, 2013 A.D.) and to the Office, which ignored to send the affidavit, through the Government of Nepal, Home Ministry in order to make aware upon the responsibilities and duties stipulated by the law. Page No. 13 070WO0876 29th February, 2016 Kiran Khadki VS Government of Nepal Our right conferred by the Article 8 (2) (B) Clause 3 (1) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 order, command including mandamus, whichever is needed, should be issued on the name of the opponents to provide citizenship of descent to me, the petitioner Kiran Khadgi, the son of Sarita Khadgi, by mother’s name. No pleading is seen to have been held in the affidavit of the opponent, District Administration Office, Kathmandu that the petitioner cannot or shall not obtain citizenship as per claim, and it is not right to obstruct posing unnecessary complication from providing citizenship certificate to be provided as per law; hence, it is decided that mandamus shall be issued on the name of opponent, District Administration Office, to provide Nepalese citizenship certificate to the petitioner as per claim by fulfilling the process upon immediately calling the petitioner. 92 14 068-WO -0731 15th March, 2016 Sajda Sapkota VS Government of Nepal For the sake of obtaining citizenship by mother’s name, application was furnished by fulfilling the process as per Article 8 (2) (B), Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 063 and Sub- rule (1) of Rule 3 of Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063, but condition has surfaced to wipe out our identity by the aforementioned oral order given by the opponent, stating that citizenship could be given by mother’s name, without even registering the application, and condition has appeared for us to be compelled to live in the stateless situation throughout our lives; hence, order or command including mandamus whichever is needed should be issued giving an order In the situation of the application furnished by fulfilling the minimum process as per law for the sake of obtaining citizenship, on the ground of the aforementioned precedent propounded by this Court, instead of helping in friendly manner in the sensitive issue such as citizenship, the opponents are found to have made the petitioners lingering by refusing to confer citizenship certificate, pretending this and that. Such work cannot be considered as responsible and legal work. petitioners’ mother has possessed the citizenship of Nepal and their father has been disappearing; hence, there is no obstacle present in conferring citizenship by mother’s name and mandamus has already been issued before this by this Court on this issue; but, even though all the District Administration Offices are seen to have been circulated, the work of not conferring the petitioners with the citizenship by mother’s name is unjust; hence, it is decided that mandamus is supposed to be issued on the name of the opponents to immediately confer them with the citizenship by mother’s name. Hence, according to the spirit of the order made in the present case and the order made in the case of Sabina Damai it is decided that directive order shall be issued on 97