upon issuing summon notice to submit affidavit within 15 (fifteen) days except for the journey time limit by road, through the Office of the Attorney General, by explaining if there is reasonable ground and reason for not issuing order. Order of this Court, of the date of 2072/2/27 (June 10, 2015 A.D.), reads as above. of 2068/5/5 (August 22, 2011 A.D), has also been received; hence, condition does not exist to issue re-order in the context of the same issue. For the aforementioned ground and reason as well, there is no condition to issue any order as per the claim of the opponent petitioner; hence, the opponent’s writ petition should be revoked. Affidavit of the Office of Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers reads as above. Nothing has been mentioned in the petition regarding what, what kinds of involvement this Office has on the issue, claimed by the opponent petitioner. No ground and reason to make this Office an opponent has been mentioned in the petition. Present petition that cannot establish basic fact why this Office is supposed to be made an opponent for not fulfilling what, which responsibility as to be fulfilled as per the Constitution and law is revocable in prima facie. On the issue regarding acquisition of the citizenship claimed by the petitioner, provision is found to have been made by the Interim Constitution, 2063 as well as Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 that the citizens of Nepal shall obtain citizenship of Nepal without discrimination on the ground of equality. It cannot be said otherwise that the party, who asks for the citizenship certificate of Nepal, shall have to furnish application suitable to rule to the body concerned by complying with the rule, process and procedure based on Citizenship Act and Rule. In this condition, being under the prevailing law, the lien on posts having legal duty to provide recommendation for citizenship and citizenship certificate shall have to provide citizenship certificate to the Nepalese citizens as per rule, process and procedure determined in law. As far as looking into the context of the issue of providing citizenship of Nepal by mother’s name, on date 2067/11/15 (February 27, 2011 A.D.) having including Sabina Damai as petitioner versus including this Office as opponent, directive order was issued on the name of Ministry of Home Affairs to “provide the petitioner citizenship of Nepal by descent, arrange necessary provision 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 child, who was born in Nepal from a Nepalese citizen mother come to ask for citizenship by their mothers’ names, and move forward necessary and effective step to eradicate such bad traditions, practices customs still remaining in the society,” and for the sake of its implementation, it was sent by writing to the Ministry of Home Affairs through the letter of the date of 2068/3/6 (June 20, 2011 A.D.) of D.No. 289 of this Office; and letter for information of 3 points circulation made for all District Administration Offices, through the letter of L.No.N. and A.S. 2068/69 D.No. 147 of the date There is not the condition that the petitioner has held the claim stating that legal provision has remained an obstruction to obtain citizenship. The issue regarding providing citizenship does not fall within the scope of this Ministry; hence, the writ petition, filed by making unrelated body, this Ministry an opponent, appears to have been meaningless; hence, it should be revoked. Affidavit of the Ministry of Law, Justice, Constituent Assembly and Parliamentary Affairs reads as above. On the issue claimed by the opponent writ petitioner, it has not been explained in the petition regarding what, what kinds of involvement this Ministry has. It is not right to furnish writ petition by making an opponent on the issue in which this Ministry has not been involved; hence, it should be revoked in connection to this Ministry. Affidavit of the Government of Nepal, Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare reads as above. If the writ petitioners furnish application before the Chief District Officer concerned by obtaining recommendation of local body concerned from the place where their father has permanent residence, its action shall be taken from the District Administration concerned. In the condition of father’s name, surname, address known, due to what, what kinds of reason there is a difficulty in going to District Administration Office, upon going to the place where there is a permanent residence, obtaining recommendation of the local body concerned. Nothing has been explained in the writ petition towards this. If gone to the District Administration along with the documents determined in the Act and Rule to fulfill the documents to be submitted to obtain citizenship, all the acts and actions shall be done from right there; hence, the writ petition furnished by making an opponent in connection to this Ministry should be revocable; hence, should be revoked. Affidavit of Nepal Government, Ministry of Home Affairs reads as above. In the present case that has been submitted upon being inducted to the daily cause list as per rule, document file and documents have been studied. Pleading was heard, which was made by learned Pabitra Rawat, present on behalf of the petitioners, stating that upon having a love marriage of the 104 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION