the writ petition of the opponents is revocable; it should be revoked. Affidavit of Hom Nath Maske on behalf of Lalitpur Sub-metropolitan City, Ward No. 13 reads as above. which right conferred by law is affected how due to what, which act and action or decision of whose, evidence should be submitted so as to satisfy the Court. Opponents’ claim cannot be justified simply by making opponent or holding claim. In the aforementioned context, it is not found that no reason and ground could be explained to make this Ministry an opponent; hence, in connection to the Ministry, the opponents’ writ petition is revocable in prima facie. It should be revoked. The writ petitioner has not submit the application to this office with rule as per Schedule to be submitted along with the recommendation from local body concerned for the sake of obtaining the citizenship certificate of which there is provision in Clause 8 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 and Rule 3 of Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063; hence, the aforementioned writ should be revoked. Affidavit of District Administration Office, Lalitpur reads as above. In the context that it has been mentioned that, in the writ petition, Office of Lalitpur Sub-metropolitan City, Ward No. 13 has not provided recommendation for the sake of making Nepalese citizenship certificate, from the observation, description is clear that Local Self Rule Act, 2055 has been promulgated with the purpose to form the local bodies for the sake of development of the local self-rule system. It is clear that the Municipality set up as per Clause 80 of the aforementioned Act is a continuous successive self-ruled and organized institution as per Clause 81 of the same Act. Moreover, in Clause 262 of the same Act, there is legal provision that the rights conferred to the village development committee, municipality and district development committee, as per Local Self-Rule Act, except otherwise made provision in the aforementioned Act, these bodies shall have to use; in this context, regarding the decision and acts and actions happened and done by the municipality autonomous by law, there is no condition to make this Ministry an opponent; hence, the opponent’s petition is revocable; it should be revoked. The opponent writ petition has made this Ministry also an opponent, but cannot explain anywhere in the writ petition the particular reason of making opponent. Since she cannot justify what kind of effect has happened upon the right of the opponent due to which act and action of this Ministry, the claim pleading is automatically revocable. So far as the claim of the petitioner that citizenship certificate has to be obtained as per prevailing law is concerned, the act regarding the citizenship does not fall under the scope of this Ministry; hence, false claim pleading held by the opponent taking base of the acts not done by this Ministry should be revoked. Affidavit of Women, Children and Social Welfare Ministry reads as above. As per mentioned by writ petitioner, Bijay Basnet, in his writ petition, the matter that Nepalese citizenship certificate was not provided to him when he demanded the citizenship certificate by fulfilling the procedure prescribed by law upon being under the Nepali Citizenship Act, 2063 including the Rule, 2063 is false. To obtain citizenship as per law is the natural right of all citizens; hence, circulation was made by this Ministry to all the offices under it on date 2068/5/5 (August 22, 2011 A.D) , stating that citizenship certificate should be provided through the mother’s name as well, by fulfilling all the legal processes prescribed by act and rule. The petitioner’s description that citizenship was not provided by mother’s name is false. Hence, no acts and actions of this Ministry have affected the petitioner’s fundamental right; hence, interim order and writ is not supposed to be issued in connection to this Ministry as per claimed in the writ petition; writ petition is revocable; it should be revoked. Affidavit of the Ministry of Home Affairs reads as above. So far, by demanding mandamus by the petitioners, condition does not exist for the writ petitioners to hold claim to issue mandamus on the name of including this Ministry, and as per the Government of Nepal (Work Division) Rule, 2069, the works including making recommendation for the sake of citizenship certificate and providing citizenship do not fall within the scope of this Ministry; hence, condition of creating any legal duty and liability of this Ministry does not exist regarding this; hence, the opponents’ writ petition is revocable; it should be revoked. Affidavit of the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development read as above. The Government of Nepal, Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers is committed, by complying or getting the Constitution and law complied, to realize the concept of rule of law and to respect, protect and promote the rights of the citizens conferred by Constitution and law. So far as the issue of the acquisition of the citizenship claimed by the writ petitioner, regarding this, it is found that apart from the Constitution of Nepal, 2063, Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 has made the provision that the citizens of Nepal can obtain the citizenship of Nepal without discrimination on the First of all, writ petitioners cannot mention anything regarding what and what kinds of constitutional and legal rights of theirs have been affected by what, what kinds of acts and actions or decisions of this Ministry. While holding claim against anyone, by clearly mentioning regarding what, 79 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION