P L D 1988 Lahore 437 (PLP)

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑‑This Intra‑Court Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 8‑4‑1987, whereby writ petition filed by the appellant to call in question the domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent No.1 has been dismissed.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that Alia Mueed, respondent No.1 obtained a domicile certificate from the District Magistrate, Rahimyarkhan, and on the strength thereof got admission in Quaid‑i‑Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, against one of the two special seats reserved for under‑developed district of R.Y. Khan. Noor Fatima appellant herein, too, was a contender for this seat. She accordingly moved the District Magistrate for cancellation of the domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent No.1 but no action, it is stated, was taken on that application. Appellant then filed writ petition before Bahawalpur Bench of this Court praying therein that the impugned domicile certificate dated 7‑9‑1986 be cancelled and respondent No.1 be restrained from seeking admission against the reserved seat or continuing her studies in the medical college. She also prayed that the respondents be directed to admit her against a special seat. Case of the appellant in the writ petition was that whereas she was the permanent resident of Rahimyar Khan district where her family has been living since ages, respondent No.1 never resided in that district and she succeeded in obtaining the domicile certificate through fraud and misrepresentation and on the basis thereof got admission in the medical college.

3. Learned Single Judge after referring to the various provisions of the college prospectus took the view that a candidate seeking admission against a special seat reserved for a backward district is required to be the resident of such district. It was held that the provisions of section 17 of the Citizenship Act and rule 23 of the Citizenship Rules requiring the pre‑condition of one year's residence in Pakistan "pertain to the domicile of a person in Pakistan on the country basis and they do not relate to the residence of a person in a particular district." On factual plane, learned Judge in Chamber on consideration of the material placed on the record was satisfied that respondent No.1 was a resident of district R.Y. Khan. Reference in that behalf was particularly made to the comments submitted by the District Magistrate wherein he had stated that Dr. Abdul Mueed father of Alia Mueed respondent was practicing as Dental Surgeon in Dubai on. temporary basis and he owns a residential house in village Raees Pathan, tehsil Liaqatpur, where his family stays when they come back from the foreign country and that respondent No.1 owned 27 acres of landed property and her other family members also had 147 acres of land in the said village. Impugned domicile certificate was thus held to be not open to any exception and writ petition was accordingly dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has contended that it was not proved on the record that respondent No.1 had resided in district R.Y. Khan for a period of one year before the domicile certificate was issued to her and, as such, she was not entitled to the grant of the certificate in question. Contention of the learned counsel appears to be based on the provisions of section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act and rule 23 of the Citizenship Rules which are reproduced hereunder:‑ "Section

17. Certificate of domicile.‑‑ The Federal Government may upon an application being made to it in the prescribed manner containing the prescribed particulars grant a certificate of domicile to any person in respect of whom it is satisfied that he has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year immediately before the making of the application, and has acquired a domicile therein. Where an application for grant of domicile fulfils the requirements and preconditions, held, that the District Magistrate would be left with no discretion but to issue the certificate. Such an application could demand the domicile certificate as a matter of right. "Rule

23. Certificate of domicile,‑‑ The Central Government, the provincial Government or any District Magistrate authorised by the Provincial Government in this behalf may on application made to it in this behalf issue a certificate‑of domicile in form P‑l in the manner following:‑ (a) 'An application for a certificate of domicile shall be made In Form "I'll in duplicate. It shall be accompanied by an affidavit affirming the truth of the statements made in it and affirming further that the applicant had not migrated to India after the first day of March 1947 or that, having so migrated, had returned to Pakistan under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by an officer, authorised by the Government of Pakistan. (b) Any authority to whom an application is presented may demand such evidence as it may consider necessary for satisfying itself that the facts stated in the application are correct and that the applicant has been continually resident in Pakistan for a period not less than one year and intends to live permanently in Pakistan." (c) The authority shall pass such orders on the application as it deems fit. The provisions afore quoted, no doubt, make it a condition precedent for the grant of a domicile certificate that the applicant, for it has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than it one year before making the application but these provisions quite clearly were not attracted to the case of respondent No.1 who admittedly was burn in Pakistan and was, therefore, a domicile of Pakistan by birth. A citizen of Pakistan by birth is also essentially a domicile of Pakistan. She was evidently not required to produce the domicile certificate envisaged in the aforementioned provisions which as held in Saeed Amer v. Principal Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and another P L D 1982 Pesh. 51 are meant for a class of persons who originally were not the citizens of Pakistan; had migrated to the. country after the Partition of Indo‑Pak sub continent during the specified period; had abandoned their domicile of origin and had ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year with the intention of residing in this country permanently. The certificate in dispute issued to respondent No.1 was obviously not the one envisaged vendee the aforesaid provisions. It was, in fact a certificate of permanent residence though the granting author . the District Magistrate had described it as a domicile certificate appears to be a misnomer. It was held in Muhammad Yar Khan v Deputy Commissioner‑cum‑Political Agent, Loralai 1980 S C M R 456 that domicile and 'permanent residence' are two distinct and separate concepts although before a person is granted a domicile certificate generally he must show that he had lived in Pakistan with the intention of permanently residing therein. It was also observed by their B Lordships of the Supreme Court that when a person is granted al domicile certificate he would be deemed to be a domicile of Pakistani and not of a province or a part of a province. In this view of the matter, it was not necessary for respondent No.1 to strictly satisfy the requirement of one year's residence contained in the afore referred provisions. She was only required to satisfy the relevant Authority that she was the resident of R.Y. Khan district. It was observed by Lord Macmillan in the case of Ramsay v. Liverpool Royal Infirmary (1930 A C 588) that the residence must answer a qualitative as well as a quantitative test, and that the Courts have regarded naturalization, purchase of house or burial ground, exercise of political rights, financial expectations, establishment of children in business, the place where a man's wife and family reside as indecia of his C intentions in regard to residence. Now the fact that respondent No. 1 and other members of her family owned landed property in a village of district Rahimyar Khan and her father owned a residential house there is sufficient indication of her being a resident of that district.

5. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge was contrary to the certificate issued by the Chairman of the Union Council to the effect that respondent No.1 or her father did not own any house in the village nor had she ever lived there. It may be observed that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the certificate of the Chairman but he has relied upon the report of the District Magistrate according to which respondent No.1 and other members of her family owned landed property in Mauza Raees Pathan since 1976 and they also owned a residential house in that village. On our query, learned counsel quite frankly conceded that the report of the District Magistrate was not controverted by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge rightly relied upon the report of the District Magistrate contents whereof sufficiently and substantially prove that respondent No.1 and her family were permanent residents of Mauza Raees Pathan, district Rahimyar Khan.

6. Interview of what has been said above, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is not open to any exception. This appeal being without any merit ‑is dismissed in limine. M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.