in the application mentioned. Upon looking into the affidavit received from the opponent, the Home Ministry, as per the decision made on date 2069/10/5 (January 18, 2013 A.D.) from the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister level, stating to distribute or get the citizenship distributed so that it could not be against the provisions of the Constitution and the Citizenship Act, circular is seen to have been made to all Regional and District Administration Offices on date 2069/10/7 (January 20, 2013 A.D.). In Point No. 4 of the aforementioned circular, description is seen to have been mentioned including that citizenship should be issued to the children found within the borders of Nepal, but maternity paternity not identified, through the identification of the patron by letting it happen as per that at the time when maternity paternity is identified later. From this, the present disputed issue seems to have been addressed. provision as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 and Sub-article (6) of Article 8 of the Constitution, avoiding the demand of the petitioner, is not seen to have been based on the Constitution and law. Therefore, it is decided that Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063 and Point No. 10 (7) of Citizenship Certificate Distribution Directives, 2063 are not seen to have been inconsistent with the Sub-article (3) of Article 8, Articles 13, 22 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 as well as with Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063; hence, the writ petition shall be quashed up to that inconsistency. Constitutional and legal provision are seen to have been made in Sub-article (30 of Article 8 of the Constitution and Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063, stating that the person found within the borders of Nepal, having paternity maternity not known, shall obtain the citizenship on the basis of descent; hence, the decision made by District Administration Office, Kathmandu, on the date of 2070/4/9 (July 24, 2013 A.D.), and the functions and actions connected with that have been revoked with the Certiorari Order as per Sub-article (2) of Article 107 of the Constitution. Now, upon the application form furnished by the petitioner for the sake of Nepalese citizenship, by looking into the spirit of the aforementioned Constitution, Act and Rule, with considering upon the condition of the Petitioner as well, Mandamus order is decided to be issued in the name of the opponent, the District Administration Office, Kathmandu, stating to confer the by adopting decision needed upon conferring citizenship of descent by indicating the description if paternity maternity is not seen to have been known. In the present case, though issue has been raised by the opponent, District Administration Office through the information letter of the date of 2070/4/14 (July 29, 2013 A.D.), despite being able to decide by examining additional matters on this, it does not appear that decision has been made as per this. By simply raising the issue upon the status and process in connection to the person found within the borders of Nepal but having paternity maternity not known, it is not right to say that the petitioner shall not obtain the citizenship. No decision is found to have been pronounced by the District Administration Office either, upon whether or not the petitioner shall obtain the citizenship as per the application furnished by the petitioner for the sake of citizenship. If any condition is seen that the petitioner shall not obtain the citizenship, it is the duty of the opponent, District Administration Office, to assist the Court by sending affidavit and authorized documents by mentioning the base and reason of that. By defying the Court order by not sending even the affidavit, District Administration In the situation that the aforementioned circular issued by the Home Ministry has addressed the present issue, the fact that the petitioner shall obtain the citizenship is justified. Now, in the course of hearing of the aforementioned circular, the opponent, District Administration Office, can make decision pertaining to the citizenship upon considering. District Administration Office, Kathmandu, had to make decision on the issue of the citizenship of the person who is found within the borders of Nepal having paternity maternity not known, which is of the person who makes demand for the citizenship by fulfilling that process necessary and appropriate to be ascertained, but it is not found to have made the decision. Primarily, District Administration Office is seen to have avoided the main issue of citizenship by raising the matter of the process of obtaining patronage by Prajapati Sharma, the person who has applied by being the patron of the petitioner addressing in the direct issue of the citizenship as per the petitioner’s claim. As per the provision of Sub-article (3) of Article 8, of the Constitution, the state is compelled to confer or get the citizenship conferred to the person having paternity maternity not known. Pertaining to how to confer citizenship as per the aforementioned provision, though the matters of process can be determined in the directives, unnecessary conditions or hurdles are not supposed to be raised so that the substantive matters of Sub-article (3) of Article 8 of the Constitution are defeated. As per the aforementioned constitutional provision, process has to be set so as to simplify the work of conferring citizenship and the issue of citizenship shall have to get decided on the basis of that process. Hence, the decision made on the date of 2070/4/9 by District Administration Office, Kathmandu, by refusing the 90 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION