P L D 2022 Balochistan 73
Before Abdul Hameed Baloch, J
FATIMA ---Petitioner
Versus
NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY through Director
General ---Respondent
Civil Revision No. 229 of 2017, decided on 31st May, 2021.
(a) National Database Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000) ---
----S. 10 ---National Identity Card--- Blockage of National Identity Card (CNIC) ---
Opportunity of hearing---Burden of proof ---Scope ---Plaintiff obtained manual national
identity card and thereafter, obtained CNIC (Computerized National Identity Card) from
NADRA (National Database Registration Authority) ---On expiry of CNIC, the plaintiff
approached the Authority for renewal, which was refused on the ground that her CNIC had been blocked--- Record reflected tha t the plaintiff was duly registered by the Authority under
the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 and after fulfilling all legal requirements the Authority had issued CNIC to the plaintiff ---Plaintiff was admittedly a
citizen by b irth as such she was automatically a citizen of Pakistan ---Burden of proof was on
the Authority to prove that the plaintiff was not a citizen of Pakistan--- Mere verbal assertion
was no ground to deprive a person from his/her fundamental rights ---Right guar anteed by the
Constitution could not be taken away by notification---Authority had blocked CNIC of the plaintiff without any notice ---Authority had acted arbitrarily and in a capricious manner ---
Authority had failed to discharge its burden regarding blocka ge of CNIC ---Revision petition
was accepted and the suit was decreed.
Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor v. Government of Pakistan through its Secretary Ministry of
Interior Writ Petition No. 3748 of 2019 and Director General NADRA v. Bibi Saira, Civil Revision Petit ion No. 433 of 2019 rel.
(b) National Database Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000) ---
----S. 10 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Part II, Chap. 1 [Arts. 8 to 28] ---National Identity Card --
-Fundamental rights ---Blockage of National Identity Card (CNI C)---Effect ---Blockage of
CNIC has grave consequences ---It effects the person's life and is a denial of fundamental
rights as guaranteed by the Constitution---On cancellation or blockage of CNIC the person loses every fundamental right i.e. education, heal th, employment, etcetera.
(c) Administration of justice ---
----No one can be condemned unheard.
(d) Administration of justice ---
----Document cannot be refuted by verbal assertion.
Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Yasmeen 2011 SCMR 837 ref.
(e) Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Arts. 132 & 133 ---Cross -examination---Unchallenged portion of statement of witness ---
Evidentiary value ---Scope ---Where the statement of a witness goes unchallenged, it is
presumed to be admitted.
Jan Muhammad v. Abdul Rehman 1999 CLC 266 rel .
Akram Shah for Petitioner.
Nadeem Akhtar, Law Officer NADRA for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 26th May, 2021.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH J .---The petitioner/plaintiff assailed judgment and
decree dated 12th May, 2017 (impugned judgment and decree) passed by Additional District
Judge -VI, Quetta (appellate court), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/ defendant
was allowed and judgment a nd decree dated 16th February, 2015 of Civil Judge -III, Quetta
was set aside and suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Precise facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and
consequential relief against t he respondent/ defendant alleging therein that the
petitioner/plaintiff entered into marriage with Bahauddin at Quetta in the year 1984. After marriage the petitioner/plaintiff procured her manual as well as national computerized identity card. The petitio ner/plaintiff obtained her children B -Form from Directorate General
of respondent/defendant and certificate from National Database and Registration Authority. The petitioner's/ plaintiff's computerized national identity card having No. 54400- 0344585- 8
was expired on 30th September, 2010, as such in the month of March, 2013 the
petitioner/plaintiff applied for renewal of her CNIC. Instead of renewal the respondent/defendant blocked her CNIC.
3. The respondent/defendant filed written statement, raised legal a s well as factual
objections and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Out of divergent of pleadings the trial court framed following issues on 24th
September, 2014:
i. Whether plaintiff has no documentary proof in her position ( -) which can prove that
plaintiff is a citizen of Pakistan? (OPD)
ii. Whether defendant illegally and unlawfully blocked the CNIC of plaintiff? (OPP)
iii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed for?
iv. Relief?
5. The petitioner/plaintiff produced her evidence, whereas in rebuttal the representative
of respondent/ defendant got recorded his statement. On conclusion the trial court vide
judgment and decree dated 16th February, 2015 decreed the suit. Being dissatisfie d the
respondent/ defendant filed appeal before Additional District
Judge -VI, Quetta, who vide judgment and decree dated 12th May, 2017 allowed the
appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 16th February, 2015 and dismissed the suit of the petitione r/plaintiff, hence this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the judgment and decree of
the appellate court is contrary to law and facts. The appellate court without any reason accepted the appeal which is highly unwarra nted under the law. The petitioner's husband and
father in law have obtained MNIC and CNIC after due process of law. The appellate court without any cogent ground discarded the document which was issued by respondent/defendant. The judgment of the appellat e court is patently illegal.
7. Conversely the Law Officer NADRA vehemently opposed the contention of the
petitioner by stating that the judgment of the appellate court is well reasoned and according
to law. The petitioner/ plaintiff has not availed the remedy as provided under notification
dated 19th April, 2017 issued by Interior Ministry, Government of Pakistan. The
petitioner/plaintiff has to approach the District Level Committee. The learned Law Officer
further stated that under Section 18 of the Nat ional Database and Registration Authority
Ordinance, 2000 the respondent/ defendant has authority to impound, cancel the card. The judgment of the appellate court needs no interference.
8. Heard and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel . The record
reflects that the petitioner/plaintiff obtained MNIC and thereafter, CNIC from NADRA. On expiry of CNIC the petitioner/ plaintiff approached the authority for renewal which was
refused on the ground that her CNIC has been blocked. The citizens hip of a citizen is
governed by Citizenship Act, 1951. The record reflects that the petitioner was duly registered
by the authority under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000.
After fulfilling all legal requirements the authorit y issued CNIC to petitioner/ plaintiff
meaning thereby that the respondent/ defendant has not objected the citizenship of the
petitioner/ plaintiff. The blockage of CNIC has a grave consequence. It effected the person's
life, meaning thereby that it is denial of fundamental right which guaranteed by the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution). On cancellation or blockage of CNIC the person looses every fundamental right i.e. education, health,
employment etc. By such act the au thority has taken away the right of life as guaranteed
under Article 9 of the Constitution. Admittedly the petitioner/ plaintiff became a citizen by
birth on birth. The person became citizen of Pakistan automatically. The procedure to
approach the District Committee in case of blockage of CNIC has no baking of law. In Writ
Petition No. 3748 of 2019, titled Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor v. Government of Pakistan
through its Secretary Ministry of Interior, the Honorable Islamabad High Court held:
"Section 4 is most crucial for the purposes of the adjudication of the petitions in hand
because it explicitly declares that every person born in Pakistan after commencement
of the Citizenship Act shall be a citizen by birth. The two exceptions are mentioned in
clauses (a) and (b) ibid. The scope of the exceptions is limited and restricted to only two clearly described eventualities. Birth creates a right to become a citizen of
Pakistan by operation of law. The legislature has used the expression 'shall' and thus
birth in Pa kistan is the sole ground to become a citizen."
It was further held:
"Section 18 vests in the Authority the power to cancel, impound or confiscate a card
issued under the Ordinance of 2000. Sub- section (1) empowers the Federal
Government, through an orde r in writing, to return the card liable to be cancelled,
impounded or confiscated through separate orders. However, the legislature has
explicitly provided that no order shall be made unless the person has been given notice in writing calling upon him to
show cause as to why the order should not be made. Sub- section (2) of section 18 restricts
the scope of the powers vested in sub- section (1) and the same is reproduced as
follows:
"(2) An order under subsection (1) cancelling, impounding or confiscating a card may
be made only if there is reason to believe that --
(a) the card has been obtained by a person who is not eligible to hold such card, by posing himself as eligible;
(b) more than one cards have been obtained by the same person on the same eligibi lity
criteria;
(c) the particulars shown on the card have been obliterated or tampered with; or
(d) the card is forged."
Further held that:
"----The eligibility criterion for issuance of the card has been explicitly prescribed
under section 10 read wi th section 9 i.e. a citizen who has attained the age of eighteen
years and has been registered under section 9. The registration of a person and issuance of CNIC under sections 9 and 10 is an affirmation by the State that the latter is a citizen of Pakista n. After issuance of the card, its particulars can only be
modified, altered or changed in accordance with the procedure and fulfillment of requirements described under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2002. There is no cavil to the proposition that the presumption of
truth is attached with the card and the particulars recorded therein.----- "
The Honorable Court further held:
"----The Authority is definitely not empowered to adjudicate upon the question of
citizenship of a person because it has to be exclusively dealt with under the Citizenship Act. Once a card has been issued then the incorporated particulars can
only be changed, modified or altered in accordance with the manner prescribed under
rule 13 of the Rules of 2002. The said rule does not entitle a third party to have the particulars changed. Nonetheless, changes or modifications can be made in execution
of a decree or order passed by a competent court. Likewise, a card can be blocked
pursuant to an order by a competent court e.g. in the case of a person declared as an
absconder under the law. In case of renunciation, deprivation or loss of citizenship,
the blocking, ca ncellation or revocation of the card would be subject to completion of
proceedings and passing of an order by the respective competent authorities under the Citizenship Act. --"
Further held that:
"----The procedure regarding referring the cases to the purported District Committees
is also alien to the statutory provisions and safeguards provided under the
aforementioned statute. The legislature, in its wisdom, has not vested the Authority with the power to suspend or block a CNIC and as already noted, in order to do so a
judicial order by a competent court would be required. Blocking a card would tantamount to suspending the citizenship of a registered citizen and exposing the latter to the horrendous consequences that follow.---"
9. This court in unreport ed case Director General NADRA v. Bibi Saira, bearing Civil
Revision Petition No. 433 of 2019 held:
"8. There is another important aspect of the case, which has been oversighted by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit of the respondent i.e. t he marriage of
respondent with one Bahauddin, who is admittedly a Pakistani citizen having all the relevant documents regarding his status. If the stance of the respondent is totally discarded, even then, she will be entitled for grant of citizenship of Pa kistan within
the purview of section 10 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which reads as under -'
"10. Married women. ---(1) Any woman who by reason of her marriage to a [British
subject] before the first day of January, 1949, has acquired the status of a [British subject] shall, if her husband becomes a citizen of Pakistan, be a citizen of Pakistan.
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) and subsection (4) a woman who has been married to a citizen of Pakistan or to a person who but for his de ath would have
been a citizen of Pakistan under section 3, 4 or 5 shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Federal Government in the prescribed manner, and, if she is an alien, on obtaining a certificate of domicile and taking the oath of a llegiance in
the form set out in the Schedule to this Act, to be registered as a citizen of Pakistan whether or not she has completed twenty- one years of her age and is of full capacity.
(3) Subject as aforesaid, a woman who has been married to a person w ho, but for his
death, could have been a citizen of Pakistan under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 6 (whether he migrated is provided in that subsection or is deemed under the proviso to section 7 to have so migrated) shall be entitled as provi ded in subsection
(2) subject further, if she is an alien, to her obtaining the certificate and taking the oath therein mentioned.
(4) A person who has ceased to be citizen of Pakistan under section 14 or who has been deprived of citizenship of Pakistan under this Act shall not be entitled to be registered as a citizen thereof under this section but may be so registered with the previous consent of the Federal Government."
10. Admittedly the respondent/defendant issued CNIC to husband of petitioner/plaint iff
as well as father in law of petitioner. The authority/ respondent issued CNIC after fulfilling
all codal and legal formalities which creates a right to the petitioner. Such right cannot be taken away on suspicious or flimsy grounds. When a right accrue d to any person the same
cannot be withheld or taken away without due
process of law. Under the law the burden of proof lies on respondent to prove that
petitioner is not citizen of Pakistan. Mere verbal assertion cannot be a ground to deprive a person from his fundamental rights. The right which is guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be taken away by notification.
11. The record reflects that the representative of the respondent appeared. He neither
produced any document nor exhibited. The respondent has blocked CNIC of the petitioner without any notice. The respondent acted arbitrary and in capricious manner. It is settled principle that no one can be condemned unheard. The respondent failed to produce any document to substantiate its contentio n that the petitioner is not a citizen of the country. The
respondent/ defendant failed to discharge its burden in regard of blockage of CNIC.
12. The respondent has not produced any document in regard of cancellation/blockage of
CNIC of husband and father in law of the petitioner. On the other hand the petitioner
produced documents through witnesses which confirmed the contention of petitioner. It is settled law that the document cannot be refuted by verbal assertion. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakista n in case of Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Yasmeen 2011 SCMR 837 held:
"----It is well- settled by now that mere oral assertion is not sufficient to rebut
documentary evidence.--- "
13. The petitioner/plaintiff in the suit adduced evidence the statements of plaintiff 's
witnesses have not been challenged in cross -examination. It is settled law that where the
statement of witness went unchallenged it presumed to be admitted meaning thereby that the respondent/defendant admitted the statement of plaintiff. Under Article 113 of the Qanun- e-
Shahadat Order, 1984 (Order' 1984) fact admitted need not to be proved. Article 113 of Order 1984 is produced hereunder for ready reference:
"Article -113. Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any
proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or
which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions."
Reliance is placed on case of this court titled Jan Muhammad v. Abdul Rehman 1999
CLC 266, wherein it was held:
"(b) Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
---Arts. 132 & 133---Unchallenged portion of statement of witness ---Evidentiary value -
--Plaintiff in proof of his title in respect of property in dispute had examined witnesses
who stated that defendant had admitted before them tha t he was tenant under plaintiff
and not owner thereof and witnesses were not cross -examined on that point ---Plaintiff
through evidence of witnesses, in circumstances, had proved that he was owner of property in dispute because when a portion of statement of a witness had gone
unchallenged, same had to be accepted in evidence."
In view of what has been discussed above, the instant revision petition is accepted.
The judgment and decree dated 12th May, 2017 passed by Additional District Judge -VI,
Quetta is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 16th February, 2015 passed by Ci vil
Judge -III, Quetta is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
SA/147/Bal. Revision accepted.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.