petitioner, Bipana Basnet, with Rabi Adhikari in 2044 (1987/88 A.D.), Rinex Basnet was born on 2051/2/24 (June 7, 1994 A.D.); father and mother got divorced on 2054/3/30 (July 14, 1997 A.D.); then, the father did not nurture, educate, meet including the child; hence, all the certificate including character certificate have been obtained from school by retaining mother’s surname, “Basnet”, by the son’s wish. Similarly, “Rinex Basnet” has been mentioned in the birth registration certificate obtained from the Office of Kirtipur Municipality. When they went to Kathmandu District Administration Office, Babarmahal, Kathmandu on date 2068/11/30 (March 13, 2012 A.D.) by obtaining recommendation from Kirtipur Municipality, Ward No. 8 to make citizenship, Assistant District Administrator working there struck off, with pen, the surname “Basnet” mentioned in the application, which was furnished stating that citizenship should be provided as per the recommendation, and wrote “Adhikari”. Hence, when requested to provide citizenship by keeping “Basnet Adhikari” because educational certificates would be useless, he did not provide, but said that only father’s surname should be kept if citizenship by descent was to be obtained; citizenship was not provided by mother’s surname, Basnet surname; hence, present writ was filed because there was no alternative way. When the petitioner tried to obtain by keeping surname of mother’s identity, it was not right to prevent so as not to obtain that identity. The opponent did not have the authority to prevent by not providing citizenship to the petitioner who tried to retain mother’s identity surname only due to that reason; hence, mandamus order should be issued to provide the opponent with citizenship as per petition claim. In this, petition claim is seen to have maintained that upon having love marriage of the petitioner, Bipana Basnet, with Rabi Adhikari on date 2044 (1987/88 A.D.), petitioner, Rinex Basnet, was born on 2051/2/24 (June 7, 1994 A.D.); after the divorce of the parents on 2054/3/30 (July 14, 1997 A.D.), the petitioner, Bipana Basnet, has been looking after, educating the child, and all other certificates including character certificate have been acquired from school by retaining mother’s surname, “Basnet” as per the son’s wish, and “Rinex Basnet” has been mentioned in birth registration certificate received from Kirtipur Municipality; hence, he wants to obtain citizenship by retaining mother’s surname, “Basnet”. Similarly, petition claim is seen to have maintained that even upon requesting to provide citizenship by mentioning “Rinex Basnet Adhikari” by the surnames of both of mother and father, citizenship was not provided saying that only father’s surname should be kept if citizenship by descent was to be obtained; hence, mandamus order should be issued. In the applicant’s name, surname, and date of birth in the birth registration certificate issued by the Office of Kirtipur Municipality on date 2068/11/30 (March 13, 2012 A.D.), Rinex Banset, son of Mr. Rabi Adhikari and Mrs. Bipana Basnet, date of birth 2051/2/24 (June 7, 1994 A.D.) is found to have been mentioned. In character certificate provided by the school and in S.L.C. mark sheet, Rinex Basnet is seen to have been mentioned. In Clause 9 of Birth, Death and Other Personal Events (Registration) Act, 2033, it is found that “the registration certificate provided as per Clause 6 shall be an evidence that personal event has occurred and such evidence can be submitted to any office or court and used in personal transaction.” Mainly, upon looking into the petitioner’s petition description and certificate, condition is seen that the petitioner has wanted to mention the surname in the citizenship according to the surname birth certificate and various certificates of the school. Pleading was heard, which was made by learned joint attorney, Mr. Shyam Kumar Bhattarai, present on behalf of the opponent, stating that in the context of the issue of providing citizenship of Nepal by mother’s name, on the writ petition of writ No. 0703 of the year 2067 B.S. having including Sabina Damai as petitioner, directive order was issued by the Supreme Court on date 2067/11/15 (February 27, 2011 A.D.) on the name of Ministry of Home Affairs to provide the petitioner with citizenship of Nepal by mother’s name as per law, arrange necessary provisions by issuing circulation on the names of all the C.D.Os. nationwide to easily provide citizenship certificate by mother’s name by fulfilling rule and procedure of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 and Rule of the same if the children were born from Nepalese citizen mothers; and circulation was made to all the District Administration Offices for the sake of its implementation; hence, there was no condition to issue re-order on the same issue; hence, the writ petition should be revoked. As per above, that having claim including that the petitioner, Rinex Basnet, should be provided with citizenship by descent because both the parents are Nepalese citizens as per Clause 3 (1) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063, and petition claim is seen to have maintained that while trying to obtain citizenship by mentioning mother’s name, Basnet, he could not obtain; and upon the application submitted to the District Administration Office by the petitioner that citizenship of Nepal should be granted, it does not appear that decision was made by explaining any ground, reason for not providing citizenship or order issued along with reason if other procedure had to be adopted regarding the citizenship. In Sub-rule (1) of the Procedure of Obtaining Nepalese Citizenship Certificate by 105 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION