1980 PLP 456 (SCMR)

"

6. Citizenship by migration.‑(1) The Central Government may, upon his obtaining a certificate of domicile under this Act, register as a citizen of Pakistan by migration any person who before the commencement of this Act migrated to the territories now included in Pakistan from any territory in the Indo‑Pakistan sub‑continent outside those territories, with the intention of residing permanently in those territories

8. Rights of citizenship of certain persons residing abroad.‑The Central Government may, upon application made to it in this behalf register as a citizen of Pakistan any person who, or whose father or whose father's father, was born in the Indo‑Pakistan subcon tinent and who is ordinarily resident in a country outside Pakistan at the commencement of this Act, if he has, unless exempted by the Central Government in this behalf, obtained a certificate of domicile ‑. 16. citizenship.‑(1) A citizen of Pakistan shall cease to be a citizen of Pakistan if he is deprived of that citizenship by an order under the next following subsections. (2) Subject to the provisions of this section the Central Govern ment may by order deprive any such citizen of his citizenship if it is satisfied that he obtained his certificate of domicile or certificate of naturalisation by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact, or if his certificate of naturalisa tion is revoked.

18. Delegation of powers.‑The Central Government may; by order notified in the Official Gazette, direct that any power conferred upon it or duty imposed on it by this Act shall, in such circumstances, and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direc tion, be exercised or discharged by such authority or officer as may be specified.

21. Penalties.‑Any person who in order to obtain or prevent the doing of anything under the Act makes any statement or furnishes any information which is false in any material particular and which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false, or does not believe to be true, shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 177 of the Pakistan Penal Code " It would thus be seen that in accordance with the requirement of section 6, a person in order to be registered as a citizen of Pakistan, is required to prove that he had migrated to Pakistan before the commence ment of the Act with the intention of permanently residing within its territories, as also that he had obtained a certificate of domicile. 1n the nature of things, it should, therefore, be evident that having lived within the territories of Pakistan, with the intention of permanently residing there in, would be a fact which must precede the making of an application for the grant of a domicile certificate, and consequently there is no room for doubt that "permanent residence" and "domicile" are two different concepts. Now in section 8 of the Act, which deals with the case of a person who, or whose father or whose father's father, was born in ‑the Indo Pakistan sub‑continent and who is ordinarily resident in a country outside Pakistan at the commencement of the Act, the requirement of possessing a certificate of domicile has been reiterated, unless the said person has been exempted by the Central Government in that behalf. It is true that in accordance with this section, the person concerned is not required to show that before he was granted the domicile certificate he had resided in the territories of Pakistan, with the intention of permanently residing therein. But then the legislature itself has so expressed its intention in that behalf. Not only this but the legislature has further empowered the Central Govern ment to exempt the person concerned from obtaining even a certificate of domicile, therefore, the category of persons covered by the said section would seem to form a special category to whom the said concession has been granted. In so far as section 16 is concerned, it is of general application provid ing as to how a citizen of Pakistan shall cease to be or can be deprived of his citizenship. The unambiguous language of subsection (21 of that sec tion would essentially make it appear that generally the grant of a domicile certificate to a person is preceded by the filing of an application by him in that behalf in which he must disclose (if that be the case) that he had lived in the territories of Pakistan with the intention of permanently resid ing therein. However, if it is subsequently found that he had abtained the domicile certificate by means of fraud, false representation or the conceal ment of any material fact, then he shall cease to be a citizen of Pakistan. Now so far as section 18 is concerned, it is only relevant to this extent that it empowers the Central Government by an order notified in the Official Gazette to delegate its powers under the Act to such authority or officer as may be specified therein. But when notice is taken of section 21, it reiterates the sanctity attached to the grant of a domicile certificate inas much as if a person is found to have furnished amongst others any infor mation which is false in any material particular and which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false, or does not believe to be true, is said to have committed the offence punishable under section 177 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Now from the analysis of all these sections, as well as section 17 of the Act what would follow is (1) 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 ; (2) that when a person is granted a domicile certificate he would be deemed to be .a domicile of Pakistan and not of a Province or a part of a Province ; (3) the fact that a person before making an application for the grant of a domicile certificate had lived in Pakistan would be entitled to persuade the authorities that he had done so with the intention of permanently residing therein and he was entitled to the grant of a domicile certificate ; and (4) that a citizen of Pakistan by birth is also essentially a domicile of Pakistan unless, of course, he has lost the said domicile by acquiring another domicile of his choice. However, the main reason which seems to have invariably led the authorities erroneously to describe the grantee of a domicile certificate to be the domicile of a particular part of Pakistan would be found in Form P‑1 (Appendix XIV), which appears at page 563 of Volume I of "Statu tory Rules and Orders made under Central Enactments", and which reads as under :‑‑ "(Under section 23‑Pakistan Citizenship Rules). APPENDIX XIV FORM `P‑1' The Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (1I of 1951) and Rules made there under (Vide rule 33). Certificate of Domicile Whereas AB

son of

(in block letters) (in block letters) has applied for a certificate of domicile under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (II of 1951), alleging with respect to himself/ herself, the particulars set out below, and has satisfied the undersigned that the conditions laid down in section 17 of the Act for the grant of a certificate of domicile are fulfilled in the said AB's .

case. Now, therefore, in pursuance of the powers conferred by the said Act and the Rules made thereunder the undersigned hereby grants to the said AB

certificate of domicile. In witness whereof I have hereto subscribed my name this day of ......

..........................19

..... Signed .................. Name........................ Designation................ Particulars relating to the Applicant Full name ....................................................................................... Father's name .............................................................. Address in Pakistan ............................................................ Address in the country outside Pakistan ............................................. Place

Tehsil

Distt

Place of domicile Prov./Admn ........................................... Date of arrival in the place of domicile Married/Single/Widow/Widower ......................................................... Name of wife or husband .................................................................. Names of children and their ages

Trade or occupation ..................... Marks of Identification ........................ PHOTOGRAPH Signed, Name.................................... Designation

Place .............................. Date ................................ Now evidently this is the Form on which a person, after filling in the columns under the heading "Particulars relating to the Applicant" applies for the grant of a domicile certificate. However, the inept language used in columns 5 and 6 of the Form, namely, the column "Place of domicile Tehsil ..District ." and the column ‑Date of arrival in the place of domicile ..", has indeed contributed to the confusion, It should be noted that in the opening part of the Form, which embodies the language in which a domicile certificate is finally granted, it is said that "whereas AB case

has satisfied the undersigned that the conditions laid down in section 17 of the Act for the grant of a certificate of

domicile are fulfilled in the said AB's .

case" meaning there‑ by that the basis for the grant is section 17, and not the particulars furnish ed by the applicant in the second half of the said Form. It is true that the Form is an officially printed Form, as it appears in Volume I of "Statu tory Rules and Orders made by the Central Government", yet the expressions used in columns 5 and 6 of it to the effect "Place of domicile ..............Tehsil District and Date of arrival in the place of domicile

"and misleading although the draftsman of the Form has evidently picked the same from section 17 of the Act, not realising that when torn out of the context of the section the said expressions would convey an altogether different meaning. The language of section 17 which has already been noted, is "that the Central Government may grant a certificate of domicile to any person in respect of whom it is satisfied that he has, ordi narily 1csided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year ...............and has acquired a domicile therein". Now when the words has acquired the domicile therein" are seen in conjunctions with the words "has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year", it should be obvious that what the legislature intended to convey thereby was that the applicant having ordinarily resided in Pakistan for no less than a year had now expressed his intention to make Pakistan his permanent place of residence. This indeed can be the only construction which the words "has acquired a domicile therein" can bear, for if the words are construed literally, they would mean that the applicant had already secured domicile in the country in which event what would be the need for him to make an application for the grant of domicile certificate? It is our considered view, therefore, that the said two columns, as they exist in Form P‑1, and the language of which has no doubt been picked up from section 17 of the Act, require suitable amendment so that instead of the existing words therein, namely, place of domicile.....Tehsil ..District ." and "Date of arrival in the place of domicile .." ire substituted by the words "Place of permanent residence ............and "Date of arrival in the place of permanent residence . The main reason for which we have suggested this amendment is to clarify the existing confusion. But even otherwise, the language used in the said two columns, will have to be construed to mean the "permanent residence" of the applicant and not his "domicile", as in the context of the Scheme of the Act (specially of section 17 thereof), the expression "domicile" is not only un warranted but wholly misleading. Now by construing the application of the petitioner, which he had filed before‑the District Magistrate; Loralai,‑for ‑the. Grant of domicile, certificate he must be held to have actually claimed to be the permanent resident of Loralai, as he claimed that he owned a house therein. However. On the subsequent inquiries held in the matter, the said claim of the peti tioner was found to be false and consequently the domicile certificate granted to him was cancelled by the District Magistrate. The admitted position, however, is that on the strength of the said domicile certificate the son of the petitioner had, against a seat reserved for the permanent residents of Loralai, secured admission in the Engineering College. It is H true that this question is no more a live issue in this case, as according to the learned counsel, the son of the petitioner has withdrawn from the Engineering College and has been admitted in the Medical College, but the fact remains that the object for which the petitioner had sought the grant of the domicile certificate was to facilitate the admission of his son to the said institution. In this view of the matter, we have not been able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the District magis trate had no jurisdiction to cancel the so‑called domicile certificate issued by him to the petitioner. We may as well mention that there is no legal bar in the way of the petitioner, if he is so minded, to make a fresh application to the District Magistrate, Loralai, for the grant of a ' domicile certificate, as he is a citizen of Pakistan by birth, having his ancestral home in the District of Dera Ghazi Khan. As to the certificate of "permanent residence" in the District of Loralai, however, the position is entirely different inasmuch as in the institutions of higher learning of the country certain seats have been reserved for the permanent residents of Baluchistan and so it would be the burden of the petitioner to prove that he was also the permanent resident of that Province or one of its Districts. If the petitioner succeeds to satisfy the authorities in that behalf, we have no doubt that he would succeed in securing a certificate of permanent residence also but that ques tion lies exclusively in the jurisdiction of the authorities. We are, therefore, satisfied that the judgment of the High Court, which proceeds on different reasoning though, is unexceptionable, therefore, this petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.