2052/4/4 (July 20, 1995). No Nepali citizen has been discriminated on the ground of race. Citizenship certificate has been issued within its jurisdiction on the basis of surname (family name) according to the procedure prescribed by the Constitution, Act and laws and the surname (family name) has also been corrected accordingly. Therefore, the office has not committed any act violating any title and rights of the petitioners and therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. petition of the petitioners and therefore, the petition deserves to be quashed and should be quashed. District Administration Office Mahottari in its written reply has stated that if any citizen applies for citizenship certificate mentioning the name different form his/her father, the certificate is provided by mentioning different surname (family name) or correcting the surname (family name) if the statement seems to be reasonable. Therefore, the order as requested by the petitioners should not be issued against the office and the writ petition should be quashed. District Administration Office Panchthar in its written reply has stated that the office implemented the provisions mentioned in the writ petition and the provisions prescribed by the law according to law. The office has been carrying out its works promptly and the pleadings made in the petition are unjust, and therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. District Administration Office Dhankuta in its written reply has stated that citizenship certificate has been distributed form the office within the purview of Citizenship Act, 2020 (1963) and the Citizenship Rules 2049 (1992). While distributing citizenship certificate pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Citizenship Rules 2049 (1992), name and surname (family name) of the citizen should be mentioned, however there is no mandatory provision for mentioning caste/ race. Therefore, citizenship certificate is issued by mentioning name and surname (family name) as requested by the applicant in the schedule. None is required by the to mention caste/race in citizenship certificte. If anyone files an application with the recommendation of Village Development Committee or Municipality stating that there is error in the name or surname (family name), it is also certified that such and such person is the same. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners concerning this office is unreasonable and the writ petition should be quashed. District Administration Office Arghakhanchi in its written reply has stated that like other district administration offices, this office has been distributing citizenship certificate according to the Constitution, Citizenship Act and Rules and all legal provisions concerning to citizenship after making necessary inquiry upon the form duly filled up. No discrimination has been made on the ground of race, tribe or clan. No right of the petitioners has been violated as mentioned in the petition and the writ petition should be quashed. District Administration Office Banke in its written reply has stated that Dalit communities have been allowed to write their surname (family name). Surname (family name) and races/cast have been corrected without delay to Dalit or any other Nepali citizen, if it is worthy to be corrected, after making necessary inquiry if he/she files an application enclosing necessary evidences stating that there is mistake in his/her surname (family name) according to law. None has been compelled to write caste/race and therefore, the writ petition concerning this office is unjustifiable and therefore, should be quashed. District Administration Office Saptari in its written reply has stated that while distributing citizenship certificate from that office it is issued according to Act, Rules and the circulars issued by the Ministry of Home under these act and rules. On those matters, the office has been carrying out its function as per the circular received from the Ministry of Home with direction to carry out function as per the decision of Council of Ministers in different from time to time. If anyone asks for obtaining citizenship certificate based on surname (family name) except race/caste or based on caste the same is provided as per his/her demand if such person seems eligible for citizenship by descent. None has been discriminated. Therefore, the false writ petition should be quashed. District Administration Office Rasuwa in its written reply has stated that no constitutional or legal rights of the petitioners have been violated from any act of this office. The writ petition filed on fictitious and subjective grounds is worthy to be quashed in itself and should be quashed. District Administration Office Rolpa in its written reply has stated that the plea of the petitioner that citizenship certificate has been distributed from the office by compulsorily mentioning the so called occupational caste/race, is fictitious and untrue. The order of mandamus should not be issued in the petition based on untrue facts. Therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. District Administration Office Bajura in its written reply has stated that in the writ petition filed against this office the petitioners have not been able to clearly mention which of the act to be carried out by this office according to Citizenship Act or Rules or other law in force on the matters mentioned in the petition. Therefore, law does not support the 10 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION