(3) of Clause 5 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 has also furthered the aforementioned provision. Petitioner, Raju Shaiyad Mohammad, furnished application in District Administration Office, Chitwan, on date 2064/11/06 (February 18, 2008 A.D.) asking for naturalized citizenship and the District Administration Office, Chitwan sent the file along with the aforementioned application to Home Ministry on date 2064/11/29 (March 12, 2008 A.D.) for the sake of decision, but no decision has been made by Home Ministry till now. As no decision has been made by the opponent Ministry, there is the situation that the petitioner has been deprived of the right to obtain naturalized citizenship as per the Constitution and law. The Government of Nepal cannot stay away from letting the children of a Nepalese citizen use the right of citizenship conferred by the Constitution and law. By not even making any decision till many years of furnishing the application along with necessary evidence for obtaining the citizenship, the Home Ministry has made great injustice upon the petitioner and other persons like the petitioner who have furnished applications. Consequently, by being stateless, the persons including the petitioner are compelled to undergo lots of difficulties for the sake of consuming the services and facilities allowed by the state. Such behavior shown against the petitioner by the Government of Nepal is not only unjustifiable but also unconstitutional and against the law as well. Hence, Mandamus order should be issued on the name of the opponent, the Government of Nepal, stating to implement or get the provisions relating to naturalized citizenship to be conferred by the Interim Constitution of Nepal and law implemented in practice, and to confer or get the naturalized citizenship conferred to the persons including the petitioner as soon as possible. (1) Is or is not there the situation of the delay caused by the Government of Nepal, Home Ministry to decide on the issue whether Raju Shaiyad Mohammad of the writ petitioners can be conferred the Nepalese naturalized citizenship or not? (2) Is any order supposed to be issued in the present writ petition including in connection to other persons claimed in the petition, besides Raju Shaiyad Mohammad of the writ petitioners or not ? (3) Does the condition to issue order as per petitioners’ claim exist or not? First of all, let’s consider about the first issue determined for the sake of decision. In this, the petitioners’ principal petition claim is seen to have been that of the petitioners, Raju Shaiyad Mohammad is a person qualified to obtain the Nepalese naturalized citizenship as per the Constitution of Nepal, 2063 and Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063, and because the provisions contained in the Constitution and in law for the naturalized citizenship to be conferred could not be practically implemented, other persons including the petitioner have been deprived of obtaining the naturalized citizenships. Hence, Mandamus should be issued on the name of Home Ministry, stating to practically implement the aforementioned constitutional and legal provisions and to decide to immediately confer the citizenships to other persons including the applicant who have applied for the naturalized citizenships. In the affidavit presented by the opponent, Law and Justice Ministry, it has been mentioned that it has no jurisdiction on the matter of citizenship. In the affidavit presented on behalf of Home Ministry, description is seen to have been mentioned that the documents submitted by the writ petitioner, Raju Shaiyad Mohammad, along with the application asking for naturalized citizenship are under investigation and after the investigation, necessary decision shall certainly be made on whether the applicant is supposed to be conferred the naturalized citizenship or not; hence, intervention is not supposed to be made through the writ scope presently. Learned deputy-attorney general, Mr. Yog Raj Baral, present on behalf of the opponent, the Government of Nepal, presented the pleading stating that there is situation that delay has been made to decide not to confer the petitioner the naturalized citizenship. Just a delay in decision is caused because the investigation work upon the application furnished by the petitioner has not been concluded. The Government of Nepal is prepared to confer citizenship to the petitioner if, after the investigation, he is seen to be qualified to obtain the naturalized citizenship. Hence, writ petition should be revoked. 7. The provisions contained in the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063 and Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 on the issue of obtaining Nepalese naturalized citizenship by the children born from Nepalese citizen woman married with a foreign citizen are as follows: Order of this Court : • Considering the aforementioned pleadings, upon studying the evidence documents attached with the document file, it is seen that justice is supposed to be decided pertaining to the following issues. Sub-Article (7) of Article 8 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal : Despite whatever has been written elsewhere, in connection to the person born from the Nepalese citizen woman 64 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION