Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.3 of 1986, decided on 15th May, 1986.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, R.8 (3)‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Permanent Residence Certificate, cancellation of‑‑Appeal‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Authority by not taking into consideration Domicile Certificate granted to father of petitioner by competent Authority long ago and which was very relevant and material document having important bearing on disputed question of permanent residence of petitioner, held, had committed illegality which would vitiate judgment of Authority‑‑Order of Authority cancelling permanent Residence Certificate of petitioner was declared illegal by High Court‑‑Case was remanded to Authority for redecision in accordance with observations recorded by High Court.

S. Jehangir Hussain Shah for Petitioner.

Nooruddin Sarki and Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th May, 1986.

‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, dated 31‑7‑1985, by which her permanent residence Certificate was cancelled on appeal by respondent No.1 and further order of Committee, dated 29‑12‑1985 by which her appeal was dismissed.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner alleges to have been born in Mirpurkhas and her father was employed in Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner was granted P.R.C. on 23‑5‑1983 by District Magistrate Tharparkar.

After due inquiry she had applied for admission in Liaqat Medical College Jamshoro and her name was exhibited on Notice Board of College, thereupon respondent No.1 moved an appeal against the P.R.C. granted to the petitioner alleging that the same had been obtained fraudulently and that the petitioner was permanent resident of Islamabad.

The Commissioner Hyderabad Division after hearing the parties had held that since neither Miss Farah Deedar is proved to have been born in Mirpurkhas not her father was domiciled for the required period at Mirpurkhas nor he has got house .nor any other property to prove his permanent residence at Mirpurkhas, therefore, Miss Farah Deedar was not permanent resident of Mirpurkhas and was not entitled to take permanent residence certificate.

The petitioner filed appeal before the Committee constituted under rule 8(3) of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. The Committee heard the parties and took the view that since Mr. Deedar Muhammad Shaikh was not listed as voter in Tharparkar nor he had a house of his own at Torabad, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for grant of P.R.C. It was further observed by the said Committee that Mr. Deedar the father of the petitioner had got education at Mirpurkhas and lived there due to service of his father in Railways at that time. They were of the view that stay at Mirpurkhas on account of the service of father cannot be the sole justification for grant of P.R.C. to the petitioner.

Mr. Jehangir Hussain Shah, Advocate, has challenged the two impugned orders on various grounds and Mr. Nooruddin Sarki. Advocate vociferously supported the same orders but we do not propose to go into the same because we are of the view that this matter should be remanded back to the Committee for re‑consideration of the case of the petitioner after notice to both the parties. The petitioner has placed on record before us the photostat of Domicile Certificate, dated 13‑12‑1958 which has been issued in favour of Mr. Deedar Muhammad, the father of the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that this certificate was produced before the Committee but they had not adverted to the same. We are of the view that the fact that the father of the petitioner had been granted domicile certificate by the District Magistrate Tharparkar as far back as 1958, was a very relevant and material document which should have important bearing on the question, whether the father of the petitioner has his ordinary residence or permanent residence a Mirpurkhas. Since such an important evidence has been left out of consideration therefore, in our view the committee has committed illegality and its judgment is vitiated and, therefore, it is declared to be without lawful authority.

The case is remanded back for consideration to the said authority. We may mention here that the petitioner has produced a birth certificate showing her birth in Mirpurkhas in 1965 but we do not wish to comment upon the same, it would be for the committee to consider, whether they would entertain this certificate and as to what value they should attach to the same.

H.B.T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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