recommended and identified shall be taken action as per Clause 15 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2020. Decision made on date 2058/11/21 (March 5, 2002 A.D.) by His Majesty’s Government (Home Minister) reads as above. respondent; and the opinion of Honorable Judge Mr. Atma Ram Bhattarai is that in this, the decision cannot be made, taking up the jurisdiction by entering into the justification of the present case, upon the appeal furnished upon the decision made by Home Ministry, Kathmandu in the situation of not falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court; hence, due to the lack of jurisdiction, decision needs not be made by entering into the justification of the case. The present appeal is decided to be revoked. Despite being agreed with the opinion of Honorable Judge Mr. Govinda Kumar Upadhyay up to that the present appeal does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court due to the lack of jurisdiction, it is agreeable with the opinion to send to the Court within the jurisdiction (Appellate Court, Patan) for the sake of action; hence, I have expressed my different opinion by being disagreed up to the opinion of sending for the sake of action. As the opinions are separate, submit in front of the third Honorable Judge as per Clause 8 (4) of Justice Administration Act, 1991. Decision of the date of 2060/4/25/1 (Sunday, August 10, 2003 A.D.), having dissenting opinions of the division bench, reads as above. The aforementioned decision is not satisfactory. As per Clause 10 (A) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2020, only His Majesty’s Government gives order to omit from the citizenship by cancelling if it is known that the citizenship has been obtained on the basis of false descriptions. His Majesty’s Government is not supposed to make decision. As it is an issue of judicial conclusion, this is the right of a Court, but not of His Majesty’s Government. By His Majesty’s Government, is does not refer to just the Home Minister; hence, the Home Minister alone cannot give order. Hence, the aforementioned decision is against the prevailing law. Although it is seen from different evidence that I am a Nepalese citizen; as I am a citizen and my citizenship certificate should be maintained as it is by revoking the decision of the Honorable Home Minister made without evaluating the proof of this. Appeal furnished in the Appellate Court, Hetauda by the defendant, Ashok Shah, reads as above. The Court that registered then did not raise the issue of jurisdiction when the appeal was filed and even after the date of the appeal filed in this Court, the time limit to file the appeal seems to have remained sufficiently; hence, agreement has been shown upon the opinion expressed by Honorable Judge Mr. Govinda Kumar Upadhyay that by stipulating date, the present appealer should be sent to the Appellate Court, Patan that has the initial jurisdiction of the present appeal. By striking off the case file, stipulating the date telling the present appealer defendants to go to the Appellate Court, Patan, send the evidence attached with document file to the Appellate Court, Patan as per Rule. Decision made on date 2060/10/4 (January 18, 2004 A.D.) by Honorable Chief Judge Mr. Paramanda Jha, of Appellate Court, Hetauda, reads as above. In this, from the evidence of the documents of 2024/8/11 (November 27, 1967 A.D.) and of 2026/10/2 ( January, 15, 1970 A.D.) passed and of the Civil Case. No. 2/211, 3/212, 1/210 of 2046 B.S. (1989/90 A.D.) and Civil Case No. 5/224 of 2047 B.S. (1990/91 A.D.) and Civil Case No. 71/290 of 2048 B.S. (1991/92 A.D.), in the situation that these appealers are seen to have been Nepalese, the decision of His Majesty’s Government of the date of 2058/11/21 (March 5, 2002 A.D.) made to revoke their citizenships is seen to be different, being incongruent; hence, submit the respondent by importing. Order of Appellate Court, Hetauda of 2059/10/19 (02 February, 2003) reads as above. The opinion of Honorable Judge Mr. Govinda Kumar Upadhyay is that in this, instead of depriving the justice seeker of the remedy of justice, giving remedy as far as available is the main objective of justice; hence, it is seen necessary to send to the body with jurisdiction rather than to revoke the appeal of the appealer. Hence, it does not appear right to assume His Majesty’s Government, Home Minister as a body under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court; hence, the appeal upon the decision made by His Majesty’s Government, Home Minister, does not seem to be tried in this Court. Making decision upon the appeal of the appealer is still remaining; hence, for making decision from the Appellate Court, Patan which has the jurisdiction, it is decided that the document file is to be sent to the Appellate Court, Patan for the sake of decision, by stipulating the dates for the party present and giving its information to the The decision of the date of 2058/11/21 (March 5, 2002 A.D.) of His Majesty’s Government deeming to omit this defendant, Ashok Kumar Shah from the Nepalese citizenship by cancelling his Nepalese citizenship certificate by birth appears to have been correct and hence decided to be valid. Decision of the date of 2062/10/17 (January 30, 2006 A.D.) of the Appellate Court, Patan reads as above. There is legal provision that the power to omit from Nepalese citizenship is not supposed to be delegated at all as per Clause 14 (B) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2020. It is not right to cancel my citizenship by the opponent, Home Ministry, by getting me, the applicant defendant, to make statement in Makwanpur District Administration 24 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION