P L D 2011 Quetta 21
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, JJ
MUHAMMAD KHALIL and another ---Petitioners
Versus
EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER, REVENUE, PISHIN and another ---
Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.212 of 2009, decided on 13th January, 2011.
(a) Words and phrases ---
----"Domicile", meaning, types and purposes, explained.
(b) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951) ---
----S. 17 ---Certificate of domicile ---Nature and scope ---Domicile certificate was a
prima facie, proof of the place of permanent residence of a person, who intended to
permanently reside at a particular place ---First stage of domicile certificate was that
when the person intended to permanently reside at a particular place, would apply for a
domicile certificate and second stage was after obtaining a domicile certificate, the
holder of certificate, would continue to permanently residing at a particular place ---In
the first circumstance, when a person would apply for a domicile certificate, the
authority had to consider as to whether the applicant relinquished his earlier permanent
place of residence before selecting his new place of domicile while the second was that
the authority on its own or on the objection of any person concerned, could conduct an
inquiry with regard to a permanent residence of holder of a certificate for a parti cular
place.
(c) Words and phrases ---
----"Permanent" defined and explained.
(d) Words and phrases ---
----"Residence", defined and explained.
(e) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951) ---
----Ss. 16 & 17---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.l99 ---Constitutional petition ---Issuance
and cancellation of domicile certificate ---Scope ---Authority's hands were not tied ---
Once, the Authority had issued domicile certificate, it had the powers to cancel it, in case it
was proved that same had been obtaine d by means of fraud, misdeclaration,
misrepresentation or concealment of any material facts ---In such a situation, an action
was to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Pakistan Citizenship Act,
1951 ---In the present case, it had been proved t hat the certificate had been obtained by
the petitioners by means of concealment and misrepresentation of facts; and on a false
declaration ---Certificate, in circumstances, was rightly cancelled ---Petitioners had
failed to point out any illegality, irregul arity or any jurisdictional defects in the impugned
order to interfere ---Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.
Ghulam Mustafa Buzdar for Petitioner.
Abdul Aziz Khilji, Additional Advocate -General for Respondents.
ORDER
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J .---Facts, in brief, are that petitioner No.1 was
appointed in the Police Department, Government of Balochistan and. was posted in
District Pishin, in the year 1984. At that time, he had no domicile certificate, however,
he, for t he first time in the year, 2006, applied for the issuance of a domicile certificate
from Pishin. He enlisted petitioner No.2 in the domicile certificate being his son.
Petitioner No.2, later on, applied for the separation of his certificate, which was gran ted
to him in the year 2008.
Respondent No.1, after receiving an objection regarding both the domicile certificates,
conducted an inquiry and has cancelled both the certificates by means of an order dated 1st
April, 2009, hence, this petition.
The lear ned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of the fact that petitioner
No.1 is serving in the Police Department at District Pishin as a constable, his domicile
certificate has been cancelled on the ground that he is not permanently residing th ere.
Petitioner No.2, being son of petitioner No.1, has separated his certificate from the
domicile certificate of his father, but his domicile certificate has also been cancelled
contrary to the facts and material available on record. According to him, on ce the
certificates have been issued to the petitioners, a right has been created in their favour,
therefore, they cannot be deprived of it.
The learned Additional Advocate -General strongly opposed the contention and argued
that petitioner No.1 was emplo yed in the Police Department as a constable in the year,
1984, but he did not opt to obtain the certificate till the year 2006. The petitioners are
permanently residing at Dera Ghazi Khan and their place of residence mentioned in
their certificates is temp orary and only for the purpose of getting benefits of the
backward District. He stated that due to their misstatement and concealment of facts,
respondent No.1 has rightly cancelled their domicile certificates.
We have heard the learned counsel for the p arties and have perused the record. The
matter pertains to a domicile certificate, therefore, the purpose and meaning of a
domicile has to be considered at first. The word 'Domicile' has not been defined under
the Citizenship Act, 1951. The Black's Law Dic tionary (Seventh Edition), defines the
word 'Domicile' as a person's true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that
person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere. --also
termed permanent abode.
Plain reading of th e definition gives the meaning of a domicile as proof of a permanent
residence of a person. The concept of a permanent residence as defined in the terms of a
domicile is of two types, one by birth and the other by choice. A person, who desires to
select hi s permanent residence by choice means that he intends to relinquish his original
place of abode and to choose another place for the purpose of his permanent residence.
Once the facts of relinquishment and acquisition are established, a domicile undergoes a
change and the person acquires a new domicile and has a permanent home, at least in
the notional sense at the new place. The domicile has to be considered a synonym for
home. The domicile has been discussed by Lord Granworth in the case of Whicher v.
Home , relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"By domicile we mean home; the permanent home; and if you do not understand your
permanent home, I am afraid that no illustration drawn from foreign writers or I think
the best I have heard is one wh ich describes the home as the place 'Uncle sit -discess -
urus-sl nihi avocet unde cum profectusest peregrinarividetur. I think that the best
illustration and I use that word rather than definition, to describe what I mean."
The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the domicile certificate is a, prima facie,
proof of the place of permanent residence of a person, who intends to permanently reside at a
particular place.
The Oxford Dictionary has defined the word 'permanent' as "lasting or expecte d to last for a
long time or forever", whereas the word 'temporary' has been defined as "lasting or meant to
last for a limited time only". Similarly, the word 'Residence' has been defined as a house, the
state of living in a particular place. Thus, the pe rmanent residence means the state of living at
a particular place for all the time or at least for a longtime, whereas a temporary residence
means living for a short time.
There are two stages of a domicile certificate, one is, that when the person inten ded to
permanently reside at a particular place, as such, applies for a domicile certificate. Secondly,
after obtaining a domicile certificate, the holder of a certificate continues to permanently
residing at a particular place. Thus, in the first circumst ance, when a person applies for a
domicile certificate, the authority has to consider as to whether the applicant relinquished his
earlier permanent place of residence before selecting his new place of domicile. As far as the
second circumstance is concern ed, the authority on its own or on the objection of any person
concerned can conduct an inquiry with regard to a permanent residence of a holder of a
certificate for a particular place.
Admittedly, petitioner No.1 was appointed as constable in the police department in the year
1984 without having a domicile certificate of District Pishin. He obtained it in the year, 2006,
mentioning his residence as Teachers' Colony, District Pishin. It is important to point out here
that at the time of applying for the c ertificate, the CNIC was issued to petitioner No.1 in the
year, 2002. It indicates his temporary and permanent residence as "Hassi Khail Sokhar, Post
Office Khas, Tehsil Tonsa and District De a Ghazi Khan". Petitioner No.1, later on, obtained
another CNIC in the year, 2009. This time, he changed his temporary residence as "Teacher's
Colony, Pishin", but his permanent residence remained as District Dera Ghazi Khan in it.
In his certificate, though he has mentioned the names of his children, showing their arrival at
Pishin, but the academic documents relied upon by petitioner No.2 indicates his place of
education, as District Dera Ghazi Khan. In their petition too, the petitioners stated the fact
that their family is residing at Dera Ghazi Khan for the purp ose of a better education.
The material available on record, especially the CNIC of petitioner No.1, proves his intention
to permanently reside in District Dera Ghazi Khan. It is a fact that from the date of his
appointment till May, 2006, he did not app ly for a domicile certificate of District Pishin. In
the domicile certificate, he has shown his date of arrival at District Pishin as 1984. He has
neither expressed his intention to relinquish his permanent place of abode from Dera Ghazi
Khan, nor disclose d his willingness to choose the District Pishin as his ne w permanent
residence. Moreover, no document has been placed no record to prove that his family ever
shifted to Pishin, either temporarily or permanently. The temporary residence of petitioner
No.1 i n District Pishin is only being employed there.
As far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he was, admittedly, residing at Dera Ghazi Khan. He
completed his entire education from there, as such, there is no material on record to show his
temporary or perman ent residence at Pishin. He simply separated his certificate from his
father, without his relinquishment from his permanent resident of Dera Ghazi Khan.
Mentioning the name of petitioner No.2 in the domicile certificate of his father is not enough
to prove his intention to reside at Pishin.
It seems that the authority, while granting the domicile certificates, has not properly
considered the above stated facts. There is no proof on record, showing that, at the relevant
time, petitioner No.1 had relinquish ed his permanent residence from Dera Ghazi Khan and
opted to reside permanently in District Pishin.
The petitioners have concealed the material facts and false declaration was made at the time
of obtaining the domicile certificates. The record indicates that the applications of the
petitioners were not properly processed and detailed inquiry in this behalf was not conducted.
The CNIC of petitioner No.1, alone, was indicative of the fact that his both temporary and
permanent residence were of the District Dera Ghazi Khan. The certificates have been
obtained, only for the purpose of getting benefits, meant for the people of the backward area
of Balochistan. Even the petitioners have not produced any document or evidence to prove
their intention to shift to D istrict Pishin.
No doubt, petitioner No.1 is performing his duties there for a long period, but mere length of
his stay at Pishin by itself does not create a right to obtain a domicile certificate, nor it
establishes his permanent residence. A person bei ng a permanent resident of place 'A' may select
to reside temporarily at place 'B' in connection of his service, business etc, but it does not entitle
him to claim his temporary residence as a permanent one, without following the above criteria.
Same is th e case of petitioner No.1, as he is residing temporarily in Pishin in connection of his
service. The petitioners have failed to produce a single proof of their permanent resident in
District Pishin at the time of obtaining the certificates. To the contrary , the Councilor, Nail)
Nazim and Nazim of Union Council City, Pishin have verified that the petitioners are not
residents of the District Pishin.
There is no provision of law that the authority's hands are tied. Once it has issued a domicile
certificate, it has the powers to cancel it, in case it is proved that the same had been obtained by
means of fraud, mis declaration, misrepresentation or concealment of any material facts. In such a
situation, an action is to be taken in accordance with the provision s of the Citizenship Act, 1951.
In view of above, it is proved that the certificates have been obtained by the petitioners by means
of concealment and misrepresentation of facts and made a false declaration, therefore, respondent
No.1, after proper scrut iny, has come to a just and proper conclusion and has rightly cancelled the
certificates.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or any
jurisdictional defect in the impugned order to interfere, hence, we are not inclined to accept the
petition, which is hereby dismissed in limine.
H.B.T.17/Q Petition dismisseThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.