circulation has also been received, that circulation was made by the Ministry of Home Affairs for all the District Administration Office through the letter of the date of 2068/5/5 (August 22, 2011 A.D); hence, condition does not exist to issue order in the context of the same issue by the esteemed Court; hence, the writ petition should be revoked. Affidavit of the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers reads as above. In connection to the opponent belonging to this district, requesting the description that citizenship certificate is being provided if, by filling up the form of Schedule-1 determined by law for the sake of obtaining Nepalese citizenship certificate, this form is submitted along with the documents including the recommendation of the local body, replica copy of the citizenship certificate of the parents, copy of the elder brother or the relative within the three generations exposing lineage if that is not available, and replica copy of the relationship certificate, identification done by the parents or the persons tallied by the citizenship, identification of brothers or nearest guardian within three generations if that is not available, other evidence exposing lineage if the aforementioned certificates cannot be submitted, educational certificate or birth registration certificate or minor certificate; the writ petition filed by making this Office an opponent, mentioning false description, as per mentioned by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, that reply has been given saying that citizenship could not be provided to the son without father and that descent meant father, should be revoked. Affidavit of District Administration Office reads as above. The petition pleading of the opponent has been just that citizenship was not provided by mother’s name by the body concerned as per Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 and other law, and this Ministry has no involvement in the act of providing citizenship; hence, the writ petition which has been filed by making this Ministry, an irrelevant body, is meaningless, hence should be revoked. Affidavit of Law and Justice Ministry reads as above. The opponent writ petitioner has mentioned in the petition furnished for the sake of citizenship to District Administration Office to obtain citizenship certificate that father’s identity has not been exposed; hence, citizenship certificate has not been provided. The petition pleading that husband’s name, surname, address is not known even up to 4 years of getting married is blurred in itself. From this, it is clear that the petition has come to the Court without clean intention. Moreover, writ petition cannot be filed making this Ministry an opponent even upon the acts, actions and decisions made by the other bodies and lien on posts authorized to perform act as per prevailing law. For the sake of implementation of the order made by the esteemed Court on the case of Sabina Damai, circulation was made for all the District Administration Offices through the letters of the date of 2068/5/5 (August 22, 2011 A.D) and the date of 2069/10/7 (January 20, 2013 A.D.); hence, condition does not exist to issue re-order on the same issue; hence, writ petition should be revoked. Affidavit of the Ministry of Home Affairs reads as above. In the present writ petition submitted upon being inducted to the cause list as per rule, learned advocate Ms. Meera Dhungana, present on behalf of the petitioner, pleaded that upon having relationship with the person, whose name, surname, address not known, the petitioner, Kiran Khadgi, was born on date 2051/12/30 (April 13, 1995 A.D.), and condition was that they were living at parental and maternal uncle’s home. As Kiran Khadgi, of the petitioners, completed the age for the sake of obtaining citizenship, when they went to District Administration Office to furnish application, upon filling up Schedule form for the sake of citizenship certificate attaching with it the recommendation of Ward Office, birth registration certificate, they were refused to be provided with citizenship by descent by mother’s name, giving oral reply by saying that citizenship could not be provided to the son without father and that descent meant father; hence, his right conferred by the Constitution and law to obtain citizenship by mother’s name had been breached and condition was created for them to become without citizenship; hence, mandamus should be issued on the names of the opponents to provide Nepalese citizenship certificate by decent to the petitioner, Kiran Khadgi, by mother’s name, and learned joint attorney, Mr. Kiran Paudel, present on behalf of the opponents, pleaded that there was no obstruction to obtain citizenship if the petitioners furnished application attaching to it the evidence document determined by the law for the sake of obtaining citizenship certificate. There The opponent writ petitioner is not found to have been able to expose any reason and ground to make this Ministry an opponent; hence, in connection to this Ministry, the writ petition of the opponent is revocable in prima facie. The opponent has not been able to mention anywhere in her writ petition, stating that this Ministry has this, this kind of legal duty and liability, but has not fulfilled that duty and liability or has refused to fulfill. On the ground including the precedent propounded by esteemed Court stating that mandamus shall not be issued so far as the duty and liability has not been burdened by law, writ petition should be revoked. Affidavit of the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development reads as above. 94 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION