2006 PLP 986 (MLD)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19-2-2004 passed by District Coordination Officer, Rajanpur, through which, he has rejected the application of the petitioners for issuance of domicile certificate.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were born in D.G. Khan but subsequently shifted to Rajanpur where their father Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah was posted in the year 1977 and he purchased a piece of land there. Petitioner No.1 previously moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan for issuance of domicile certificate and the same was issued in her favour 26-11-2003, but when the petitioners' father shifted to Rajanpur they started their studies at Rajanpur. They also passed their matriculation as well as intermediate examination while residing at Rajanpur where their father remained posted subsequently due to shifting of their father, petitioner No.1 moved application to DCO, DG Khan for cancellation of earlier domicile certificate issued in her favour, which was cancelled on 4-8-2003. The petitioners moved application for issuance of domicile certificate while stating that they were residing at Rajanpur as their father was posted there. The said application of the petitioner was not decided by the DCO, Rajanpur as the brother of petitioners had earlier applied for issuance of domicile certificate which was rejected and he involved the respondents in litigation by filing writ petition and I.C.A., which were also dismissed and then the august Supreme Court has allowed him to take admission in college on the basis of domicile from Rajanpur. Writ Petition No.4201 of 2003 was filed for issuance of domicile certificate as the matter was pending with the DCO. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to 'respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioners' application within seven days. But respondent No.1 after receipt of this order has passed the impugned order declining the request of the petitioners for the grant of domicile certificate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under section 17 of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, the domicile certificate can be issued to a person if he has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year and permanent residence is not necessary in this respect. It is further contended that documentary evidence has been produced before respondent No.1 that the petitioners had been studying at Rajanpur and they also passed their matriculation and intermediate examinations from there because their father remained posted there, which is sufficient proof to show that they are residing at Rajanpur.

4. On instructions, learned Addl: A.-G., has stated that the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.946 of 2002, which was dismissed and against the said order I.C.A was also dismissed by this Court. It is also contended that the petitioners also filed an appeal against the said order under section 30 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act and it' was withdrawn later on, it is further contended that admittedly the petitioners are residents of District D.G. Khan and petitioner No.1 also applied for domicile certificate at D.G. Khan which was issued in her favour, hence impugned order is sustainable. It is also contended that the petitioners' father purchased five Marlas land at Rajanpur on 29-10-2002 with mala fide intention and ulterior motives in order to make a ground for issuance of domicile certificate.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was issued domicile certificate by Deputy Commissioner DG Khan on 26-11-2001 but, thereafter, petitioner No.1 shifted to Rajanpur along with her parents and started her studies there. Then she moved application to D.C.O., D.G. Khan for cancellation of domicile certificate on 23-4-2003, which was cancelled on 4-8-2003, and thereafter, both the petitioners applied for issuance of domicile certificate to respondent No. 1.

6. The documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioners that they had been studying at Rajanpur as their father had shifted their place of abode and after purchasing five Marlas land starting residing at the address given in their application. According to voter list dated 31-10-2002, the place of posting, and I.D. Cards of their parents when the petitioners moved application to respondent No.1 for domicile certificates, they were living at Rajanpur. From the perusal of these documents, it is proved that the petitioners have been residing at District Rajanpur for more than one year as their father remained posted there as DSP (Legal) and they are still residing there. As such respondent No.1 has wrongly refused issuance of domicile certificate to them. Under section 17 of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 petitioners become eligible for issuance of domicile certificate in their favour. It seems that non-issuance of domicile certificate to the petitioners is that earlier their brother namely Syed Asif Raza Bukhari had earlier applied for domicile certificate at Rajanpur which was refused as he had already obtained a certificate from DG Khan and this fact was concealed by him. Against the said order writ petition was filed which was also dismissed. Then said Syed Asif Raza filed an I.C.A. in this Court, and the same was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a copy of order of august Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in C.M.A. No.1997-L of 2003 in C.P. No.607-L of 2003, through which brother of petitioners has been provisionally allowed admission in the college on the basis of being resident of Rajanpur. The case of the petitioner No.1 is entirely different and on different footing with the case of her brother who had concealed the factum of receiving of earlier Domicile Certificate. On the other hand, petitioner No.1 obtained such certificate from District D.G. Khan but when the said certificate was cancelled she applied for issuance of domicile certificate to D.C.O. Rajanpur, which was refused through the impugned order. The impugned order is declared to be illegal and unlawful as respondent No.1 has failed to exercise his authority properly. In such circumstances, this petition is c accepted and D.C.O. respondent No.1 is directed to issue domicile certificate to the petitioners within seven days from the receipt of this order. H.B.T.IS-405/L Petition accepted.