Affidavit is not seen to have been furnished on behalf of the opponent, District Administration Office. Learned deputy-attorney, Mr. Chandra Kanta Khanal, present on behalf of the opponents, presented the pleadings with the description that just to lay claim of the revocation, stating that the provision of any Rule is inconsistent with the Constitution and mother Act is not sufficient. Rule and Directives are made so that it can be easy to implement the provisions mentioned in the Constitution and Act. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 has made the provision that every minor found in Nepal, having paternity and maternity not known, shall be considered as a citizen of Nepal on the basis of descent until the father or mother is traced. As per that, no citizens have to be deprived of obtaining citizenships. The provision that so-so procedures should be fulfilled in order to obtain the citizenships cannot hook the provision of the Constitution. That is just a procedural issue. In the present dispute Prajapati Sharma, the patron of this writ petitioner, Amrit Kumar Sharma, is not seen to have obtained that patronage from authorized body; hence, there is no legal error on the decision made by District Administration Office, stating that citizenship cannot be conferred; hence, the present writ petition should be revoked. In the present writ petition that has been submitted by being inducted in the daily cause lists as per Rule, the learned advocates Mr. Sabin Shrestha and Ms. Sushma Gautam, present on behalf of the petitioner, have raised two issues upon the present dispute. First, paternity and maternity of this petitioner, Amrit Kumar Sharma, have not been identified. He was taken by a person to the house of Prajapati Sharma saying that he was his son; but later the person who had taken him, disappeared; hence, has lived under the patronage of Prajapati Sharma. Because he was found within Nepal but paternity and maternity have not been found; hence, the petitioner has furnished the application to District Administration Office to obtain the citizenship on behalf of the patron as per Nepal Citizenship Act and Rule, 2063. Application was furnished by including all the necessary documents to obtain citizenship, but the aforementioned Office has refused to confer the citizenship on the basis that the patron does not have legal status and names and birth places of the parents of Amrit Kumar Sharma have not been mentioned in the Schedule form and birth registration certificate. However, there is the provision that the kinds of persons mentioned in Sub-clause 3 of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 can obtain citizenships. Hence, the decision of District Administration Office should be revoked. Upon hearing the aforementioned pleadings made by the legal professionals of both the parties, it is seen that following issues are seen to be decided on the present writ petition. Second, in Sub-article (3) of Article 8 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063, there is the provision that every minor found in Nepal, having paternity and maternity not known, shall be considered as a citizen of Nepal on the basis of descent until the father or mother is not found. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 has made the legal provision of the same level. But, by making the provision that patron’s name, surname and address shall have to be mentioned, indicating the description “paternity/maternity has not been traced” in the place of the citizenship of the person, whose paternity/maternity is not known, where the name of father or mother shall have to be mentioned, Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of same Rule, 2063 and the (7) of Point No. 10 of Citizenship certificate distribution procedure directives, 2063 have hooked upon the provisions existing in the Constitution and the Act, and the provisions made in Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 and the (7) of Point No. 10 of the Directives are against the Sub-articles (2), (3), (13), (22) of Article 8 of the Constitution and Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063; hence, order should be made be as per Article 107 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. Pleadings were presented as above. (1) Are Sub-rule (6) of Rule (3) of Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063 and Point No. 10 (7) of Citizenship Certificate Distribution Directives, 2063 inconsistent with Sub-article (3), 13, 22 of Article 8 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 and Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 or not? (2) Is the order as per claimed by the petitioner supposed to be issued or not? While considering towards the first issue to be decided, claim is seen to have been laid by the petitioner, Amrit Kumar Sharma, stating that Subrule (3) of Rule 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 and Point No. 10 (7) of Citizenship Certificate Distribution Directives, 2063 have been inconsistent with Sub-articles (2), (3) of Article 8, Article 10, Sub-article (1) of 12, Sub-articles (1), (2), (3) of Article 13 and Sub-clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution, hence should be revoked to the extent of that inconsistency, and that he is a person having paternity maternity not known, who has been living under the patronage of Prajapati Sharma, and that although such person shall have to obtain citizenship upon being considered as a Nepalese citizen until father or mother is traced, the decision of District Administration Office, Kathmandu not to confer citizenship on the basis including that 87 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION