have violated the fundamental rights of equality guaranteed by the Article 11 and right to liberty guaranteed by the Article 12 of the Constitution and submit evidences. As regard to the plea of the respondent made in the paragraph 10 of the writ petition, citizenship certificates have been provided according to the provision of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 2020 (1963) and Rule 3 and Schedule 1 and 2 of the Citizenship Rules. No compulsion has been made to mention caste in arbitrary manner disregarding the provisions of the above mentioned Acts and Rules. The office has not carried out any act violating the right to equality and right to liberty of the petitioners guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. been made to mention the caste/race arbitrarily as mentioned in the writ petition. District Administration Office Kanchanpur in its written reply has stated that the communities with different surname (family name)s are provided Nepali citizenship certificate allowing them to mention the surname (family name)s or so called occupational caste as per their choice. No one has been prevented from doing this. Ministry of Local Development in its written reply has stated that local bodies under the that Ministry awhile making recommendations for citizenship certificate have been making recommendations as per the proofs presented by the applicants. There is practice of filling up the forms to mention the surname (family name) in the citizenship certificate according to the surname (family name) of applicant’s father. The Village Development Committees, Municipalities and District Development Committees provide recommendation letter based on the forms and documents enclosed in it. Citizenship certificate are not issued from the local bodies and therefore they do not have authority to correct these certificates. Therefore, on order should be issued against the Ministry and writ petition should be quashed. Ministry of Home Affairs in its written reply has stated that the petitioners have not been able to mention concretely and objectively (factually) that their fundamental rights or legal rights without effective remedies have been violated from the act of the Ministry or its subordinate offices and filed writ petition urging for issuance of mandamus based on fictitious matters. The writ petition is unjustifiable and should be quashed. District Administration Office Ramechhap in its written reply has stated that the the office has been distributing citizenship certificates based on surname (family name) as per the application filed by the applicant and pursuant to the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 2052/4/21 July 20, 1995) (August 6, 1995)of the Fiscal Year 1(a) 2052/2053 Ref. No. 171, provision of Chapter 6 Section 6 (a) of Citizenship Distribution Directives, 2061 and Section 5 of the decision of the Council of Ministers dated 2052/4/4 (July 20, 1995). Dhan Bahadur Damai, son of Suryaman Damai, and resident of Gauswara V. D. C. ward No. 2 of this district filed an application urging for providing the copy of citizenship certificate changing his surname (family name) into Mahat from his caste/race Damai spelled in his old citizenship certificate and he has been provided the citizenship certificate spelling his surname (family name) as Mahat. Copies of the both; of his old withdrawn citizenship certificate and presently provided citizenship certificate bearing the number 223 that mentions the surname (family name) Mahat have been enclosed herewith as proof. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be quashed concerning that office and should be quashed. District Administration Office Parsa in its written reply has stated that the office is ready to issue citizenship certificate to citizens of Dalit communities or correct their certificate based on their surname (family name)s within the limit of the decision of the Council of Ministers if they apply for it. Therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. District Administration Office Chitwan in its written reply has stated that the office has the practice of issuing Nepali citizenship certificate even in the condition of mentioning a surname (family name) different from one’s father, based on the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, the Citizenship Act, 2020 (1963), Citizenship Rules, 1993, Rules Regarding to the Correction of Name and Caste (Race), 1961, the Directives issued from His Majesty’s Government from time to time and the provision o f No. 5 of the Circular issued by the Ministry of Home dated 2052/4/21 July 20, 1995) (August 6, 1995)based on the decision of His Majesty’s Government dated 2052 4/4, regarding to the correction of surname (family name) and maintaining surname (family name)s. Discrimination has not been made and have not been compelled to mention caste (race) compulsorily as pleaded in the writ petition. The fundamental right liberty of the petitioners has not been violated by any means from the office and the order should not be issued. The writ petition deserves to be quashed and should be quashed. District Administration Office Gorkha in its written reply has stated that Nepali citizenship certificate has been provided to the person mentioning the surname (family name) as per demanded by the person made by him/her by filling up the form prescribed in the Schedule. No compulsion has 5 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION