women equal rights with men to acquire citizenship. Making narrow interpretation of the word ‘descent’ I have been denied to obtain citizenship in the name of husband and resultantly I have been deprived from the right to make choice from whom I have to get identity. Therefore, I request to issue an order of mandamus and/or other necessary order to provide me citizenship certificate from the name of my husband. It is stated in the writ petition. father or mother and therefore, the writ petition is meaningless and should be quashed. District Administration Office, Nuwakot in its written response has stated that, it is the procedural rule and duty of this office to ask for submitting necessary documents and make scrutiny of the documents received for verification. It has been obvious from the petition that the applicant has taken back the documents which she has claims of having submitted to this office without registration or endorsement from this office. The petitioner has not been deprived from obtaining citizenship certificate and has not been denied for it if she comes by enclosing the evidence and fulfilling procedure according to Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 and Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2007. The writ petition is not based on true facts and therefore, deserves to be quashed. In the Order of this Court dated 2066/12/20 (April 2, 2010) it is stated that the respondents shall be required to submit their written response through the Office of the Attorney General within 15 days upon receipt of this order excluding the time necessary for the journey explaining what has happened in this case? Why should the order as sought by the petitioner not be issued? The writ shall be presented after serving the notice to the respondents and upon the submission of response or lapse of time limitation. In the written response submitted on behalf of the District Administration Office Nuwakot it is stated that, the application of the petitioner has not been registered at this office and the petitioner may have taken it back”. However, from the copy of the letter written by that office to the District Administration Office Kathmandu which is submitted with the writ petition, it is written that “ Nina Tamang has submitted an application for obtaining Nepali Citizenship certificate” and has also inquired about the citizenship of her father Hitman Tamang. In which ground has the correspondence been made to the District Administration Office Kathmandu about the application form which is not submitted and registered in one’s own office? The District Administration Office shall be asked for providing its accurate response and the writ petition shall be presented before the bench upon receiving of the response. It is stated in the order of this court dated 2067/10/20 (February 3, 2011). The response thereof received from District Administration Office has been enclosed in the case file. In the written response submitted by the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers it is stated that, for the enjoyment of the substantive rights of obtaining citizenship provided by the prevailing Nepal law, the existing procedural law must also be literally abided by the petitioner. The writ petitioner has not entered the court with clean hand since she has not abided by the legal duties which she has to abide by, and has filed this writ petition based only on oral expression made with good faith for following the procedure as determined by the law. Therefore, the writ petition should be quashed.’ The Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs in its written response has stated that one of the grounds of acquiring citizenship certificate provided by the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007 is that , if the father or mother of a person is a Nepali citizen at the time of his or her birth, such person acquires the citizenship by descent. Law has not made any provision as claimed by the petitioner of providing citizenship certificate from the name of husband. Therefore, the writ petition urging for obtaining Nepali citizenship certificate by descent in the name of husband is not lawful and therefore, the writ petition should be quashed. In this writ petition presented before the bench as per the rule, after hearing the arguments of learned advocates Ms. Meera Dhungana and Susma Gautam on behalf of the petitioner and learned Deputy Government Attorney Mr. Khem Raj Gyawali representing on behalf of the respondent Government of Nepal, the court has to decide whether or not the writ of mandamus as sought by the petitioner should be issued. In the written response submitted on behalf of the Ministry of Law and justice it is stated that, the writ petition deserves to be quashed which has made this Ministry as respondent which has no concern with obtaining issuing citizenship certificate. The petitioner has urged for citizenship certificate by descent in the name of husband that is against the provision of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2006 and Nepal Citizenship Rules, 2007. The existing law has guaranteed the petitioner the facility of obtaining citizenship by descent from the name of her The petitioner has mainly sought for issuing necessary order including the writ of mandamus in the name of respondent to provide and cause to provide the petitioner the citizenship by descent from the name of her husband since the District Administration Office Nuwakot did not register her application and denied to provide it orally. The written responses contended that, since the 58 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION