S. No. Writ No. Decision/ Order Date, Publication No. Name of Plaintiff and Defendant Case Details Summary of the decision Therefore, it is requested to issue the writ of Mandamus in the name of Kirtipur Municipality to provide recommendation for citizenship as per the request of the petitioner Nakkali Maharjan along with the interpretation made for other such women residing in the country suffering from similar problem. name of Kirtipur Municipality to provide recommendation to the petitioner Nakkali Maharjan to obtain Nepali citizenship certificate from the name of her father as per her application. Page No. 3 2065WO0035 N.K.P. 2066, No. 6, Decision No. 8175, Pg. 1014, 26th June, 2009 Ranjit Thapa V Office of PM and Council of Ministers Issue a Mandamus order to confer citizenship in the name of mother. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a Nepali citizen and Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 and Citizenship Rules 2006 have provided the right to petitioner Ranjit Thapa to make choice whether to obtain citizenship from the name of father or mother. Section 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 has conferred the right to obtain citizenship either from the father or mother’s name and has thus ‘descent’ included both of mother and father. Hence, the interpretation that the petitioner has to seek a citizenship certificate only from the address of his father shall be contradictory to the letter and spirit Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 as well as other statutes. It would also be contrary to the international standards of human rights. Therefore, as there is unanimity that the petitioner Ranjit Thapa is a bona fide Nepali citizen and is qualified according to the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 and Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2006 to obtain Nepali citizenship certificate by descent which is corroborated even by the written responses of respondents and as such though the addresses of his mother and father are separate , an order of Mandamus is hereby issued in the name of respondents to provide him citizenship certificate from any one address out of the addresses of his mother or father as per his choice. 17 4 Criminal Appeal No.0622 of the year 2064 N.K.P 2067, No. 4, Decision No. 8349, Pg. 600, March 2, 2010 Ashok Kumar Shah V Government of Nepal The men of spot investigation have justified that I was born in Nepal; though from the deeds including the cases of partition passed by mother Tara Devi, executed in Makwanpur District Court, and from my educational certificates also that I am being seen to be a Nepalese citizen, the decision made by Home Minister to cancel to make my citizenship void and the decision of the Appellate Court, Patan is revocable; hence, the case should be repeated. There is no situation to assume that a person is a foreign citizen simply because he/she has not obtained the Nepalese citizenship in any time period despite permanently residing in Nepal, and it has no legal base. Nepalese citizenship is required to acquire land, to achieve higher education, to register in the Government of Nepal while running any business and occupation, to get appointed to any government posts or if this certificate is supposed to be submitted as per similar other laws. Moreover, no legal provision is found to have existed that each person having permanent residency in Nepal must obtain citizenship certificate; hence, it is not correct to assume that the father of the appealer automatically remained as a non-Nepalese citizen or a foreign citizen simply because the citizenship certificate was not obtained in the then situation. The party holding the pleading that one is not a permanent resident of Nepal or is a foreign citizen has to establish factually that he is a citizen of which foreign country. 22