P L D 2015 Balochistan 117
Before Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, C.J. and Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
JAMAL -UD-DIN and others ---Petitioners
versus
NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (NADRA) through
Deputy Director (Verification), Islamabad and 5 others ---Respondents
C.Ps. Nos. 452, 470 and 535 of 2012, decided on 31st March, 2015.
Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951) ---
----Sched. ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 ---Constitutional petition ---Factual controversy ---
Oath of allegiance ---Nationality, determination of ---Grievance of petitioners was that authorities
wrongly declared them to be foreigners which had deprived them from getting admissions in
medical college ---Validity ---Once one was declared alien, without taking certificate of domicile
from Federal Government in prescribed manner and taking oath of allegiance in the form as set
out in sched. to Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and registered as citizen of Pakistan, it was not
possible for authorities to issue a Local Certifica te to such person ---Petitioners were not bona
fide citizens of Pakistan and High Court could not declare them locals of a district of Pakistan ---
High Court declined to interfere with findings of facts drawn by authorities ---Petition was
dismissed in circum stances.
Muhammad Qahir Shah and Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Petitioners.
Zubair Naseem Khawaja and Abdul Latif Kakar, A.A.G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th December, 2014.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J C. ---By this common judgment, w e intend to
dispose of Constitutional Petitions Nos.452, 470 and 535 of 2012, as identical question of law
and facts are involve din these petitions.
Facts of C.P. No.452 of 2012.
2. Facts, as alleged in the petition, are that the petitioners belong to Noorzai tribe and they
have permanently settled at Chaman since their forefathers. It is the case of petitioners that they
along with their family members are having Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) and
prior to it, the petitioner No.2 and his family members were also holding the manual NIC.
Further the Local Certificates have also been issued in favour of the petitioners by the concerned
EDO (Revenue). The petitioner No.1 being local of Chaman has got education from the local
school up to matr iculation and subsequently, did his F.Sc. from Tameer -e-Nau College, Quetta.
It is averred in the petition that the petitioner No.1 tendered his candidature in the BMC for
2011 -2012 session which was accepted amongst the other candidates. Ultimately, the p etitioner
No.1 appeared in entry test and as per result, he stood at S.No.5 of the merit list. Thereafter, the
Balochistan Public Service Commission interviewed the students belonging to District Killa
Abdullah on 19 -12-2011, however during the course of i nterview; a candidate namely Miss Pari
Gul, raised an objection over the candidature of petitioner No.1 on the ground that he is not a
bona fide resident of Chaman. The Selection Committee entertained the objection and according
to the Prospectus referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, Local/Domicile
Committee (respondent No.5) who vide its letter No.5/DC No.3 dated 19 -1-2012 verified his
Local certificate along with other candidates. Miss Pari Gul through her brother also approached
the FI A authorities in respect of CNIC issued in favour of petitioner No.1 and his family
members and as a result thereof, the FIA authorities vide letter No.3/FIA dated 6 -1-2012 duly
addressed to the Secretary Education Department. Government of Balochistan as well as
Selection Committee, recommended to dislodge the petitioner and the admission to be granted to
next eligible candidate. However, she could not succeed to dislodge the petitioner No.1 and
finally the Selection Committee has selected the petitioner N o.1 by granting admission in First
year MBBS for the session 2011 -2012. It was further averred in the petition that a C.P. No.188
of 2012 was also filed by challenging the status of petitioner No.1 which was disposed of vide
order dated 22 -5-2012 on the re quest of learned counsel for the respondent No.6, with the
directions that at first instance to approach the NADRA as well as Chairman, Local Domicile
Committee by submitting applications and to decide the matter after issuance of notices to the
petitioner s by providing them opportunity of hearing. In the light of said order, the private
respondent approached the respondent No.5 for cancellation of Local Certificate. The respondent
No.5 issued notice to the petitioner No.1 for hearing on 14 -6-2012. Pursuant to such notice he
appeared on 14 -6-2012 before the respondent No.5 and submitted his reply, whereas the
respondent No.6 along with official respondents Nos.1 and 2 also appeared and placed a copy of
order dated 7 -6-2012 whereby the CNIC of petitioner No.1 was cancelled and the CNIC of
petitioner No.2 was blocked with remarks "confirmed alien" hence this petition.
3. C.P. NO. 470 OF 2012: In this petition, the petitioners Jamal -ud-Din son of Haji
Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Azam son of Abdul Ghaffar, have almost reiterated the same
story and sought the following relief: --
"........ It is, therefore, prayed that in consideration of above stated facts and circumstances
of the case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare as follow: -
(a) Declaring that the impugned order dated 21 -6-2012 passed by respondent No. 1 is
illegal in -excess of authority, without any material is of no legal effect.
(b) Declaring that in terms of order dated 22 -5-2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CP
No.188/2012, neithe r the petitioners have been provided an opportunity of hearing nor the
petitioners have been heard before passing the impugned order dated 21 -6-2012, therefore, such
order is illegal, void ab initio having no legal effect.
(c) Declaring that the DC/resp ondent No.1 without referring the matter to the concerned
Local/Domicile Committee and conducting a proper, impartial and fair inquiry is legally not
competent to adjudicate upon the matter and to influence from the order dated 7 -6-2012 passed
by NADRA aut horities,
(d) After declaring the impugned order dated 21 -6-2012 being illegal, in excess of
authority, one sided, based on political pressure and influence, the same may be ordered to be set
aside by restoring the local certificates of the petitioners.
(e) Pending disposal of the main petition, the operation of impugned order dated 21 -6-
2012 passed by respondent No.1 may be suspended and further respondents Nos.2 and 3 may
also be restrained from cancellation of admission of petitioner in first year MBBS in BMC
Quetta and the petitioner may also be allowed to continue his study in BMC.
(f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may found deemed fit and appropriate in the
circumstances of the case may also be awarded with cost of the proceedings, in the interest of
justice and equity."
C.P. No.535/2012:
4. The petitioner Syed Amanullah son of Syed Abdul Ghaffar has filed the instant petition
whereby following has been prayed for: --
"..... It is accordingly respectfully prayed that the petit ion may kindly be accepted in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by declaring that the act of the respondents
Nos.1 and 2 in refusing admission to the petitioner despite his being presently at S.No.5 of the
merit list is totally illegal, contrary to the prospectus of BMC Sessions 2011 -12, without Iawful
authority and jurisdiction, therefore, the same be declared as no of (sic)legal consequences,
further the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to admit the petitioner in BMC in first year
MBBS Sessions 2011 -12 by de -seating the respondent No. 1, who otherwise is not eligible for
the said seat, with any other relief in the interest of justice. "
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have not been awarded
proper opportunity of hearing by the respondent No.1 nor for that matter proper enquiry was
conducted. The official respondent No.1 with connivance of other respondent s and in league
with respondent No.6 prepared a fake report with mala fide intention to de -seat the petitioner and
thus deprive him of education which he is receiving in Bolan Medical College. The learned
counsel maintained that the petitioner since his fo refathers is a permanent resident of Chaman.
This Court while disposing of Constitutional Petition No.188 of 2012 specifically directed that
the petitioner be provided an opportunity of hearing but despite directions of this Court no
meaningful opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, resultantly, the petitioner has
been deprived of his legal and constitutional right. The blockage followed by cancellation of
petitioners' CNIC and Local Certificate is arbitrary and one sided act, as such; the o rders are
obviously passed are contrary to the norms of natural justice.
The learned counsel for private respondent and Advocate General vehemently opposed
the submissions. The AAG maintained that the FIA after thorough enquiry in the year, 2010
came to the conclusion/formed opinion that the petitioners are aliens and, therefore, the
CNICs/were blocked and the consequential action of cancellation of local certificate issued to the
petitioners was taken. Learned A.G. stressed that once the respondent No. 3 after enquiry and
thorough probe into the matter arrived at a positive conclusion that a person in the Pakistan is an
alien, as a corollary the CNIC is blocked followed by cancellation of the same. According to
learned A.A.G., once the CNIC issued to a p erson is cancelled on the ground of his being alien,
the question of local certificate either issued or sought to be issued carries no weight and in such
state of affair no illegal order has been passed and the forums were quite competent within the
hierar chy of their job description to do the same. He requested for dismissal of the petitions.
The learned counsel for the private respondents adopted the arguments advanced by the
learned A.A.G and further maintained that the petitioners are well aware of t he fact that they are
not Pakistani National but taking illegal advantage of the hospitality in Pakistan, they have
succeeded to manipulate the documents, with the result, not only fraudulently obtained CNICs
but also the Local Certificate as well. It was canvassed that a finding of fact has been drawn
against the petitioners which cannot be disturbed by this Court while exercising Constitutional
jurisdiction.
Syed Ayaz Zahoor learned Counsel for the petitioner in C.P. No.535/2012 contended that
conseque nt upon issuance of illegal local certificate the private respondent was admitted to
Bolan Medical College, which culminated in depriving the petitioner from admission in the
Bolan Medical College. However; on application filed by the petitioner an imparti al and
thorough enquiry was conducted and the respondents were found to be Afghan Nationals, thus;
were declared confirmed aliens. The Deputy Commissioner in the light of enquiry and report
submitted by the official respondents had no other option but to c ancel the local certificates.
Since Local Certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled, therefore, the petitioner is entitled as
a matter of right to be admitted to Bolan Medical College for the session 2012 -13.
The learned A.A.G and Mr. Muhammad Qa hir Shah, Advocate opposed the petition by
submitting that session 2012 -13 has already stands lapsed and legally there is no question for
admitting the petitioner in a session which is not available, therefore, on this sole ground the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record
with their valuable assistance. It appears that the Nationality of the petitioners is in -question
since 2010. Prior to the controversy between petit ioner and private respondent No.6, one Miss
Pari Gul perhaps in the year, 2010/2011 filed an application mentioning therein that the
petitioners are Afghan Nationals, therefore, the local certificate issued to them is liable to be
cancelled. On the basis o f said application the FIA authorities conducted an enquiry and it was
concluded that the documents submitted by petitioner in C.P. No.452 of 2012 for obtaining
Pakistani CNIC are forged and fake. In this regard a letter dated 6th January, 2012 issued by t he
said office to Secretary, Health Department is very much relevant which is hereby reproduced: --
"In continuation of this office letter No. DD/FIA/CC/QTA/ E.47/2011/1079 -80 dated 23 -
12-2011, on subject noted above.
2. The documents filed by Jamal -Ud-Din S/o Muhammad Azam R/0 Chaman, CNIC No.
54201 -7768372 -9, in Bolan Medical College Quetta, for the allotment of medical seat on merit
against the district wise quota/reserve medical seats of District Killa Abdullah, may please be
rejected forthwith and the next deserving candidate should be nominated and allotted to continue
his/her study in order to save his/her from any further mental agony.
3. The documents arrange by Jamul -ud-Din S/o Muhammad Azam for obtaining
Pakistani CN1C has been proved fict itious and fake. He is not a bona fide citizen of Pakistan.
4. This is for your kind information and further necessary action please. Further enquiry is
underway.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, Killa Abdullah at Chaman on 19th June, 2012 verified the
local certificate of the petitioner. This order was called in question by the private respondent
before this Court through C.P. No. 188/2012, however; later on the C.P. was withdrawn with
permission to avail the proper remedy. After withdrawing C.P. No.188/201 2 respondent No. 6,
moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Killa Abdulldh at Chaman, with
reference to order dated 22nd May, 2012. The Deputy Commissioner, issued notices to the
official respondents as well as the private parties. The parties appeared and were heard by the
learned Deputy Commissioner on 14th June, 2012. On this date the respondent No.3 filed a
report mentioning therein that consequent upon a thorough enquiry/investigation, it has been
confirmed that the petitioners are aliens as the CNICs issued to them were processed on the basis
of fake and bogus documents and, therefore, the CNICs were initially blocked and ultimately
cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties and entertaining the documents
produced before him cancelled the local certificate. The main grievance of the petitioners is that
they have not been provided opportunity of hearing and as such condemned unheard. The
petitions entirely revolve on the principle of Audi alteram partem but a conscious stud y of the
file and analysis of the documents refute the contentions of the petitioners. For the sake of
convenience the petitioner in C.P. No.452/12 in ground 'C' stated as under: --
That from the day first the respondent No. 6 is taking advantage of old record of
registration office pertaining to the parentage of petitioner No. 2 and the name of his mother. It
may be stated that such aspect of the matter was explained to the NADRA as well as FIA by
stating that late Abdul Ghaffar, the father of petitioner No. 2 and grand father of petitioner No. I
had got two marriages and the name of his wife were Mst. Barani and Mst. Aisha. Mst. Aisha
[underline is ours] was the real mother of petitioner No. 12, who had died in childhood of
petitioner No.2 and no NIC was issued in her favour. It is relevant to mention here that the
petitioner No.2 was the only son of Mst. Aisha whereas t (sic) the time of issuance of NIC in
favour of petitioner No. 2 in the year, 2011 in registration record some mistake has been made by
office authorities without knowledge of petitioner No.2, whereas the rival candidate/private
respondent by taking advantage of such clerical mistake in reference No. etc just in order to get
the admission in BMC has took the entire family of petitioner at s take by leveling false
allegations with the collaboration and active connivance of FIA --------- .
8. Similar explanation has been offered in the applications filed before the Deputy
Commissioner to meet with the objection pressed into service by the NADR A in cancelling the
CNICs, which too is reproduced herein below: --
9. The above reproduced documents and admissions are sufficient to rebut and refute the
contentions of the petitioners that they have not been provided opportunity of hearing and their
CNICs and Local Certificates have been cancelled without hearing them. It appears that since,
2010 or prior to that Nationality of the petitioners remained under scrutiny/in question and in
2011 one Miss Pari Gul raised an objection over the candidature of the petitioner on the ground
that the petitioner is not citizen of Pakistan and bona fide resident of Chaman. Consequent upon
raising objection the FIA authorities carried out investigation which culminated in forming
definite/firm opinion regarding citiz enship of the petitioners and declaring them aliens. This
situation was dealt with by the FIA while filing their para -wise comments (in C.P. No.188 of
2012 which reads as under:
"Admitted to the extent that Enquiry No.47/2011 has been initiated on recei pt of a
complaint from one Faizullah Achazzai s/o Naik Muhammad stating therein that against 5 seats'
quota of Distt. Qilla Abdullah admission in Bolan Medical College, Mr.Jamal -ud-Din
(respondent No.5 in this petition) despite being an Afghan refugee, was being given admission as
last qualifying candidate at Sr. No. 5. The complainant's real sister Miss. Part Gul, therefore, was
being deprived of admission as she stood at Sr.No.6 of the merit list. The complainant claimed
that Jamal -ud-Din had managed admi ssion in BMC because of Local Certificate on the basis of
misdeclaration and fake documents and that during enquiry conducted by local administration
into the issuance of Local Certificate. Three out of four attesters (Ex -Councilors) disowned
attestation o n documents and submitted their affidavits in this context with the local
administration.
The enquiries conducted so far has revealed that Jamal -ud-Din and his family has proved
to be non -nationals on the basis of following facts:
i. During enquiry by the local authorities, Distt. Qilla Abdullah, Jamal -ud-Din produced
MNICs of his grandfather Abdul Ghaffar (604 -38-027928) and grandmother Barani (604 -40-
027929). On scrutiny of NADRA record, it has transpired that Abdul Ghaffar and Barani had six
(06) ch ildren which do not include name of Muhammad Azam (father of Jamal -ud-Din:
ii. MNICF of father of Jamal -ud-Din namely Muhammad Azam contains his father's name
as Abdul Ghaffar but MNIC number given against the name of Abdul Ghaffar is different/bogus;
iii. According to the statements under section 16I, Cr.P.C of Jamal -ud-Din and his father,
Muhammad Azam was the only son of his parents. On the contrary, RG -II of Muhammad
Ghaffar contained names of six children that do not include name of Muhammad Azam;
iv. In their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C, three out of four attesters (Ex -Councilors)
deposed that neither Jamal -ud-Din was known to them, nor did they attest his Local Certificate,
meaning thereby the attestations were fake.
Based on the abov e, the answering respondent requested NADRA for blocking CNICs of
Jamal -ud-Din and his family. The enquiry officer has been directed to complete the proceedings
and submit final report with (Sic) further loss of time."
10. It is amazing that the petition er not only remained satisfied with the report/ findings of
FlA rather accepted the same by conduct. When the C.P. No.188 of 2012 was filed before this
Court and the report of the FIA which negates the stance of the petitioner Jamal -ud-Din was
available on record. The petitioner Jamal -ud-Din did not raise any objection nor subsequently he
moved any application to any quarter mainly because by that time his education was not going to
be disturbed due to the verification of his local certificate. So, the prin ciple of estopple applies on
all fours against the petitioner. We are afraid how we can enter to resolve such controversial,
complicated and disputed facts as asserted by the petitioner himself regarding his genealogical
tree with reference to cancellation of CNICs while sitting in Constitutional jurisdiction. It is not
advisable to disturb the findings drawn by a competent forum and collect evidence regarding
Nationality of the petitioners. Even the respondent No.6 was non -suited by this Court on the sole
ground of probe into disputed fact. It would be beneficial to reproduce relevant portion of the
order dated 22nd May, 2012 passed in C.P. No. 188/2012: --
"The petitioner objected regarding the genuineness of the local certificate and CNIC. The
learned c ounsel for the petitioner was asked as to how the factual controversy can be resolved in
the constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter at some
length, requests for withdrawal of the petitioner (sic) with permissio n to approach the concerned
Local and Domicile Certificate Committee and also to approach the NADRA officials for
redressed of his grievance."
11. It is important to note that the petitioners in their petitions have neither produced any
revenue record pe rtaining to any immoveable property belonging to them or their forefathers,
electoral list nor ever referred to any other documents showing the indigenousness of the
petitioners except Local Certificate and CNIC which are under question. Though the petitio ners
stated that the respondent No. 4 has conducted inquiry but their reports are based on earlier
CNIC and Local Certificate, no other material justifying the claim of petitioners have been
collected nor referred and produced, therefore, the report of res pondent No. 4 is of no avail.
12. Once, one is declared an alien, without taking a certificate of domicile from Federal
Government in the prescribed manner and taking an oath of allegiance in the form as set out in
the schedule to the Pakistan Citize nship Act and registered as Citizen of Pakistan, how it would
be possible for Deputy Commissioner, to issue a Local Certificate to him. After concluding that
the petitioners are not bona fide citizen of Pakistan it is absolutely impossible for this Court t o
declare them local of a District of this country.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any plausible ground to interfere with the
findings of the fact drawn by the official respondents. Consequently Constitutional Petitions
Nos.452 and 470 of 2012 are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
So far Constitutional Petition No.535 of 2012 is concerned, since the prayer of the
petitioner cannot be granted by this Court as session for the year 2012 -13 already stands lapsed
and at this juncture it is not possible for this Court to pass an order which legally cannot be
implemented, as such, C.P. No.535/2012 is also dismissed.
MH/57/Bal. Order accordingly.This 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.