11 (2) (B) and Article 12 of the Constitution of Nepal, Clause 3 (1) of the Citizenship Act, 2063, Rule 3 (1) of Citizenship Rule, 2063, and has been against Article 15 of International Human Rights, Article 24 of International Covenant on Civic and Political Right, 1966, Article 7 of Convention on the Rights of the Children, including Article 9 of Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979; hence, order an command including mandamus, whichever is needed, should be issued to provide citizenship by mother’s name as per law and to provide citizenship by descent by mother’s name so as to be interpreted in connection to the victims like us across the country. Joint writ petition of the writ petitioners, Kriti Thapa and Kabita Thapa, of the date of 2072/10/7 (January 21, 2016 A.D.) reads as above. 2. Order of this Court issued on date 2072/10/17 ( January 31, 2016 A.D.), stating to submit affidavit within 15 days as well as grant prerogative. 3. From her writ petition, it is clearly seen that application was not submitted by fulfilling the process as per Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 and Citizenship Rule, 2063 along with the recommendation of the Ward Office concerned for the acquisition of the citizenship; hence, citizenship certificate shall be provided for the Nepalese citizen who submits application to this Office to obtain citizenship certificate by fulfilling legal process; hence, the petitioner has not furnished application to this Office; in this condition, the wit petition furnished by making this Office an opponent should be revoked. Affidavit of Chief District Officer of Kathmandu, Ram Krishna Subedi, of the date of 2072/11/3 (February 15, 2016 A.D.) reads as above. 4. By going to the place of permanent residence, in the condition of the name, surname and address of the father known, due to what, by what reason it was difficult for the petitioner to go to the District Administration Office carrying along the recommendation of the local body concerned; the petitioner has not explained anything towards this. In Citizenship Act and Rule, the liability to fulfill the documents to be submitted to obtain citizenship lies to the writ petitioner; hence, by fulfilling procedure prescribed, while going to District Administration Office along with the documents determined by the act and law to be submitted, all the acts and actions shall be done from there; hence, the writ petition furnished by the petitioner by making this Ministry an opponent should be revoked. Affidavit of the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Narayan Gopal Malego, of the date of 2072/11/16 (February 28, 2016 A.D.) reads as above. 5. The opponent had never said, by coming to the Office of K.M.C., Ward No. 5, that recommendation for the citizenship was to be made, and child’s birth registration is needed for the sake of obtaining citizenship; without submitting that, the writ petition furnished by mentioning unnecessary law should be revoked. Affidavit of Administrative Chief Om Prakash Paudel of the Office of K.M.C., Ward No. 5, of the date of 2072/11/19 (Marh 2, 2016 A.D.), reads as above. 6. No affidavit from the opponent, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, has been received. 7. In the present case that has been submitted today before the Bench by being inducted to the daily cause list as per rule, documents evidence attached to the document file have been studied. Learned advocates Ms. Meera Dhungana and Mr. Sushma Gautam, present on behalf the petitioners pleaded stating that there was no dispute that the petitioner, Kriti Thapa, was a daughter of a Nepalese Citizen, Kabita Thapa. Since father disappeared, Kriti Thapa furnished application to the opponents, K.M.C., Ward No. 5 and District Administration Office to get citizenship by mother’s name by fulfilling the process of the Constitution of Nepal, Clause 3 (1) of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063, Rule 3 (3) of Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063, but the opponents, Chief Administrator of the K.M.C., Ward No. 5 and Chief District Officer refused, refused to be provided with citizenship by mother’s name, stating that citizenship had to be received only from the name of the father’s address and father’s name; hence, this Kriti Thapa has been compelled to live without citizenship in stateless condition and has been deprived of the constitutional right to get citizenship including the legal right to be obtained as a citizen. The aforementioned act of the opponents is against the Constitution of Nepal, Nepal Citizenship Act and Rule, 2063 including international documents of which Nepal was a party. Hence, necessary order should be issued on the name of the opponents so as to be interpreted that the petitioner Kriti Thapa and the victims like her should be provided citizenship by mother’s name. 8. Learned joint attorney Mr. Dashrath Pangeni, present on behalf of the opponent including the Government of Nepal, pleaded stating 120 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION