Election Commission is full of authority and competence. In the context of collection of Electoral Rolls, the above mentioned legal provisions provided by Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 are phase wise, sequential and transparent. While collecting Electoral Rolls, the person who is unsatisfied with it can make objection, the concerned official has to make decision according to law over that objection made and has to update the Electoral Rolls accordingly and publish the final Electoral Rolls. Viewing such provision made by the Act and Rules, the acts/activities of the Election Commission are transparent. If the Election Commission becomes bias against any candidate or the Commission does any act beyond its authority or carries out any act against law or principles of natural justice, the concerned person may file petition pursuant to Article 32 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal under the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this court and therefore, it cannot be held that there is an absence of remedy. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that Section 25 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 has provided excessive right to the Election Commission and is inconsistent with the Article 129 of the Interim Constitution cannot be sustained. that in the condition when the petitioner has not claimed with specification it is not appropriate for the court to conduct judicial review of the law made by the legislature based on hypothetical ground by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Article 45 of the Interim Constitution, 2006 invoked by the petitioner has already been repealed by the 5th amendment of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 dated 2065/3/29 (July 13, 2008) that is before filing of this writ petition at this court on 2067/8/6 (November 22, 2010). Since the petitioner being unable to show why and how these provisions of the Electoral Rolls Act are inconsistent with these Articles of the constitution and has made inexplicable claim by mentioning the preamble and different Articles and has claimed that the provision of the Act is inconsistent with Article which had already been repealed, therefore the constitutionality of the Act cannot be examined/tested based on such claim and it need not be considered thereof. 37. Now to consider about the second question, the petitioner has claimed that the decision of the Election Commission dated 2067/7/16 (November 2, 2010) is inconsistent with the Section 5(1)(A) and Articles Preamble of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, Article 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 46, 63, 65 and 129 thereof and urged for voiding that decision through the order of certiorari. This plead of the petitioner is complementary to the plead mentioned in the question No 1 above and it has already been discussed in the context of question No 1 and therefore, it is not necessary to discuss here about it in detail. 36. The petitioner has claimed that the other provisions of Section 11 (1), (2) and (3) of Electoral Rolls Act, 2063 except ‘Citizenship Certificate’ and the provision of Section 25 (A) and (B) of the same Act are inconsistent with the provisions of Preamble of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, Article 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 46, 63, 65 and 129 thereof. The Preamble and the different Articles of the constitution mentioned by the petitioner have their own separate/ independent objectives. The petitioner has not been able to show satisfactory reason of why and how these provisions of the Electoral Rolls Act are inconsistent with the provision of the preamble or that Article. The petitioner has the duty of showing with proof to the court of the fact that why and how the impugned provision of law is inconsistent with the constitution. However, the writ petitioner has failed to show and justify in the writ petition as well as during hearing of this writ ‘how the said sections of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 are inconsistent with the Articles 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 46, 63 and 129 of the Constitution except the Article 65(A) thereof and therefore it needs not be consider thereabout. In this subject, the Special Bench of this court in the writ petition (2067-WS-0019) of petitioner Sunil Ranjan Singh Vs Election Commission and others, has established the principle While discussing in the context of question No 1 above, the provision of Section 11 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 2006 which the petitioner has urged for declaring ultra vires and void, cannot be implemented independently contrary to the Section 5(1)(A) of the said Act and Article 65 (a) of the Constitution. Land ownership certificate or certificates issued by a government office or other body cannot substitute the ‘citizenship certificate’ used in Section 5(1) (A) and 11(1). It has already been interpreted that the land ownership certificate or other identity card may be helpful for corroborating the citizenship, if the citizenship certificate is suspicious or dubious while collecting Electoral Rolls as used in Section 5(1) (A) and 11 (1) of the Electoral Rolls Act. Since the principle has been established from that interpretation that the use of other evidentiary documents apart from citizenship certificate 43 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION