good as Nepalese laws. However, in practice, the official entrusted with enforcing those rights himself has not enforced and has deprived me, Sabina Damai, one of the petitioners, of the right to identity. Act, 2006 have provided for obtaining Nepali citizenship by the Nepali citizens based on equality and without any discrimination. For the enjoyment of the substantive rights of obtaining citizenship, the existing procedural law provided by existing Nepal law must also be literally abided by. Government of Nepal is committed to implement and cause to implement the prevailing Nepal laws and the responsibilities through all agencies and officials specified by the law. However, the question raised by the opponent petitioner does not directly relate to this Office but with the Ministry of Home Affairs and therefore, it is not pertinent to speak in this matter in this written response. Hence, on the grounds and reasons mentioned above, the writ petition should be quashed. The honored Court in the case of Advocate Tek Tamrakar Vs. the then His Majesty’s Government, Cabinet Secretariat, Singha Durbar has issued an order of mandamus in the name of respondent on 15th September, 2005 not to deny the children including the children of Badi community to register their birth and also for making necessary arrangement to provide them Nepali citizenship pursuant to Article 9(2) of the then Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 and Section 3(4) of the then Nepal Citizenship Act, 1963. On the basis of this judgment, I have to obtain Nepali citizenship by descent. The written response filed on behalf of the Ministry of Law and Justice in this respect has stated that, first of all, the laws relating to citizenship are not administered and enforced by this Ministry and this writ petition is filed by unnecessarily making respondent to an unconcerned agency. The plea of petitioner mainly involves an urge for obtaining citizenship by descent from the name of mother. Section 18 of the Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 has provided that notwithstanding anything provided for in this Act, any person who is aggrieved by a decree issued by a designated authority in accordance with this Act, may file a petition within thirty five days from the date such decree was issued with the Government of Nepal for revision of such decree. The petitioner despite the availability of that alternative remedy has directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this honored Supreme Court complaining that the Chief District Officer has denied her citizenship in the name of her mother. Therefore, the plea of petitioner is meaningless. Thus, as mentioned in the above paragraphs, owing to the patriarchal thought of the citizenship issuing authority, I, Sabina Damai, one of the petitioners, have not obtained citizenship from the name of my mother and have been deprived of other rights, viz. the rights of constitutional equality, citizenship, employment, profession or trade, free expression of thought, property, choice of domicile as well as the rights of equality, nationality and identity. Hence, I pray for the issuance of mandamus and/or any other necessary order from the honored Court to grant me citizenship from the name of my mother and make interpretation from the honored court in case of other aggrieved persons like me. I also pray that this writ petition be awarded preference in hearing since this subject is very sensitive and is a matter of public interest. It is stated in the writ petition filed at this Court. In the order of this court dated 27 January 2011 it is stated “What has happened in this regard, why an order as sought by the petitioner need not be issued. The respondent shall be notified for submitting written responses within 15 days of receiving this order excluding the period of travel through the Office of Attorney General. Let the case be duly presented after filing of written response or upon expiry of time period.” The plea in petition is vague. Some persons among the petitioners have filed writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights whereas some other petitioners have come to file this petition as public interest litigation. The act of claiming for individual rights and interests as well as claiming as public interest litigation from the same writ petition is against the established norms of public interest litigation. Hence, the writ deserves to be quashed. The written response submitted on behalf of the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers stated that the writ petitioner has not clearly mentioned which act or decision of this Ministry violated her constitutional or legal rights. In such situation the writ petition might not be filed by making this Office as respondent. Furthermore, writ petition may not be filed making this office as respondent for the act or decision made by other bodies and official authorized by the prevailing laws. The separate written response submitted on behalf the respondents Chief District Officer and District Administration Office with similar contents state that “Pursuant to Section 3(1) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006, a person born at the time when his/ her father or mother is a citizen of Nepal, shall be a citizen of Nepal by descent. However, as there was no address of the petitioner’s father nor is there any proof that she was born in Lamidanda VDC of Dolakha district, Nepal. Section 4 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 has stipulated that a person born within the boundaries of Nepal prior to 13th As far as the plea of the petitioner as regard to obtaining citizenship is concerned, the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 and Nepal Citizenship 47 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION