Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑433 of 1983, decided on 19th February, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 7‑8‑1983 passed in Constitutional Petition No. D‑576 of

1983).

‑‑‑R. 4‑‑Permanent Residence Certificate, grant of‑‑Petitioner seeking Permanent Residence Certificate of K.‑‑Having been born at C, acquired primary and secondary education there and having no fixed continuing or permanent residence at K., Certificate refused‑‑Order challenged in writ jurisdiction‑‑High Court declined to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction with question of fact conclusively determined by departmental authorities with their jurisdiction on basis of sufficient material before them‑‑Order impugned‑‑High Court's view held unexceptionable‑‑Father of petitioner having acquired domicile of K., of no avail‑‑Domicile certificate of parents cannot be sole basis for grant of Permanent Residence Certificate‑‑Such Certificate may at most be a piece of evidence for consideration of authorities.

Miss Mehmun Nisa Baloch v. Appellate Committee 1978 SCMR 439 and Muhammad Ashfaq v. Selection Committee for Engineering Seats 1982 C L C 2383 rel.

Taj Muhammad v. Commissioner, Hyderabad Division 1979 C L C 237; Adbul Qayyum v. Bashir Ahmed 1980 S C M R 736 and Ghulam Rasool v. Government of Baluchistan P L D 1978 Quetta 40 distinguished.

M. M. K. A. Zia, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ali Akbar, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th January, 1984.

The controversy in this case relates to the question whether the petitioner, Miss Rahila Mumtaz, is a permanent resident of Kotri in District Dadu and as such is entitled to the grant of Permanent Residence Certificate in Form 'C' as is prescribed by the Permanent Residence Certificate Rules.

2. The petitioner's application for grant of Permanent Residence Certificate was rejected by the District Magistrate, Dadu on the grounds, that the inquiry conducted by him to verify her claim revealed that she was born at Karachi, had acquired primary and secondary education there, had no fixed continuing or lasting abode at Kotri, had no house of her own there, and no evidence was adduced by her to establish her permanent residence at Kotri. The appeal filed by her before the Commissioner of Hyderabad Division also failed. It was contended before the learned Commissioner that the petitioner's father is domiciled at Kotri and had purchased a plot of land on which he proposed to construct a house, but these contentions were repelled, inter alia, on the ground "that her father conceded that at the time of her birth he was domiciled at Karachi". The learned Commissioner affirmed the finding of the District Magistrate that there was no proof on record to show that the petitioner was permanent resident of Kotri.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of her application for grant of Permanent Residence Certificate by the departmental authorities she filed a Constitutional Petition which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the Sind High Court vide judgment, dated 20‑8‑1983. In rejecting the plea of the petitioner basing her claim on the Domicile Certificate issued in favour of her father, who is a practising advocate, the learned Judges relied on the rule laid down by this Court in the case of Miss Mehmun Nisa Baloch v. Appellate Committee 1978 S C M R 439, to the effect that under rule 4 of the Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, a certificate cannot be granted solely on the ground of applicant's father domicile in Sind and further that there can be few better indicia of the residence of a student than the place of his primary education. The learned Judges were further persuaded to uphold the findings of the departmental authorities on the admitted facts which appeared from the following passage of their judgment;

"We had asked the father of the petitioner, who had appeared as the advocate, and he stated that the petitioner was born at Karachi, and had studied at Karachi until 1982, when she passed her class XII examination. He has also stated that all these years he had a Domicile Certificate from Karachi and his family was living with him. It was only in February, 1983 that the father of the petitioner, for the first time, applied to the District Magistrate for grant of Domicile Certificate (annexure C/I to the petition). Even the National Identity Certificates had been obtained in December, 1982. Likewise, the father of the petitioner had agreed to purchase a plot in Kotri only on 20‑1‑1983. Admittedly, the petitioner, or, her father have no property, or, house in Kotri. It may also be stated that, if the petitioner was studying at Karachi until 1982 (when she passed her Intermediate Science Examination), it would be difficult to believe that she was residing at Kotri. We asked the advocate for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner attended any classes at Karachi until 1982, and if she used to travel to Karachi every day from Kotri for attending her classes, the advocate avoided a categorical reply."

On the aforesaid view the learned Judges held that the petitioner was seeking to raise essentially a question of fact which had been determined conclusively by the departmental authorities within their jurisdiction and as such the same could not be interfered with in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

4. Before us Mr. M.M. K. A. Zia who is the father of the petitioner contended that the finding of the District Magistrate, Dadu that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Kotri was arrived at by misreading the evidence produced by her and the conclusions are not based on any material. He submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide resident of Kotri and was only temporarily staying at Karachi for the purpose of education. He relied upon his own statement made in support of the petitioner's claim before the District Magistrate Dadu. He further relied on the report of the Mukhtiarkar, Kotri dated 19‑2‑1983 in connection with the grant of Domicile Certificate in his own favour from District Dadu. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Taj Muhammad v. Commissioner, Hyderabad Division 1979 C L C 237, Kh. Abdul Qayyum v. Bashir Ahmed 1980 S C M R 736, Ghulam Rasool v. Government of Baluchistan P L D 1978 Quetta 40 and Muhammad Ashfaq v. Selection Committee for Engineering Seats 1982 C L C 2383 (2).

5. After hearing the learned counsel at length we regret to find no force in his submissions. The sheet anchor of the claim for the grant of Domicile Certificate by the petitioner is her father's Domicile Certificate which seems to have been issued in the year 1983. In his statement the father of the petitioner admitted that he had obtained the Domicile Certificate on arrival at Karachi in 1951 from District Karachi and also obtained his National Identity Card from Karachi. It is further admitted by him that his children including the present petitioner had been educated at Karachi. According to him he shifted to Kotri in and upto the date of his application form for grant of Domicile Certificate in the year 1983 he .was living in the house of his sister‑in‑law and only intended to construct a house at Kotri. He further admitted in this statement that he had an office at Karachi and at Kotri. Finally he admitted that the Mukhtiarkar Kotri and S.D.M. Kotri had not recommended his case. It was on a fresh report of the Mukhtiarkar on which reliance is being placed that the District Magistrate, Dadu issued the Domicile Certificate to him in the year 1983. It appears that the application of the petitioner for grant of Permanent Residence Certificate was made more or less at the same time. In view of the finding of the relevant authorities clearly folding that the petitioner since her birth had all along remained at Karachi and persued her studies there, the fact that in the year 1983 her father changed his domicile from Karachi to Dadu District can hardly be a valid basis for the grant of Certificate from that District. To our mind the Domicile Certificate of the parents cannot be the sole basis for the grant of Permanent Residence Certificate as the rules contemplate an independent inquiry by the relevant authorities under the Sind Permanent Residence Rules, 1971. In the case of Muhammad Ashfaq relied upon by the learned counsel it was so held that the possession of Domicile Certificate does not give entitlement for grant of Permanent Residence Certificate, which in our opinion, may at the most be a piece of evidence for consideration of the authorities. To hold otherwise that the mere fact of the parents' Domicile Certificate would clinch the issue with regard to the residence of the child will amount to reading something in the rules 'which does not exist there.

6. In view of the aforesaid we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court that there were sufficient materials before the relevant authorities in support of their finding that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Kotri and that such finding of fact was not liable to be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction is unexceptionable. Other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel do not support his case and. are distinguishable on facts. This petition is, therefore, devoid of force and is accordingly dismissed.

M . I . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.