case laws about citizenship rights related to obtaining CNIC and Passports.
So, in this case at the Lahore High Court, the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) challenged a judgment favoring Khan Agha and others. The case revolved around citizenship rights related to obtaining CNIC and Passports. The court overturned a previous decision, leading to the appointment of Amici Curiae to address legal complexities. The judgment highlighted the importance of special laws governing these matters.
JUDGMENT SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
C. R. No. 21451 of 2023
National Database and Registration Authority
VERSUS
Khan Agha and six others
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing
13.06.2024
Petitioner By:
Mr. Jamil Khan, Advocate
Respondents By:
M/s Shahanshah Shamil Paracha, Malik
Muhammad Rashid Akash and Ali Asghar
Mian, Advocates
Assisted By:
Mr. Munawar-us-Salam ASC and Mr. Imran
Aziz Khan, ASC as Amici Curiae
ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, J. This Civil Revision is preferred by the
Petitioner / National Database and Registration Authority (the “NADRA”)
against Judgment & Decree dated 17.12.2022 passed by Additional District
Judge, Ferozewala, whereby, the suit for declaration with consequential
relief instituted by the Respondents was decreed as prayed for by reversing
Judgment & Decree dated 19.04.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Ferozewala.
2.
At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present lis
relates to citizenship and rights flowing thereunder to obtain and hold
Computerized National Identity Card (the “CNIC”) and Passport. In this
context, important legal question regarding maintainability of the suit was
raised in the light of existence of special laws on the subjects. Hence, some
questions were framed on 18.10.2023. Mr. Munawar us Salam and Mr.
Imran Aziz, Advocates Supreme Court were appointed as Amici Curiae in
addition to the learned counsels representing the parties to render due
assistance to the Court. The invaluable assistance rendered by all of them is
duly acknowledged and appreciated by this Court. The said questions are
reproduced as follows:
2 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
i)
Whether the sovereign right of the State to confer nationality
upon an individual or otherwise can be subject matter of a civil
suit or is required to be decided in terms of special laws relating
to citizenship?
ii)
Whether the grant or denial of identity documents, such as,
CNIC & Passport on the basis of nationality or alien status of a
person can be subject matter of a civil suit or falls within the
purview of special laws relating to citizenship?
iii)
Whether such a suit as aforesaid is maintainable when the
Federal Government was not impleaded as a necessary party?
3.
The brief facts of this case are that Respondent No. 1 (the
“Respondent”) in concert with Respondents No. 2 to 7, who are his wife
and children, respectively, instituted a suit for declaration with consequential
relief praying that the suit may be decreed in their favour by directing
NADRA to restore their CNICs and Passports. Chairman, NADRA and
Manager, NADRA Office, G.T. Road, Ferozewala were cited as the only
two Defendants. It was claimed in the plaint that the Respondent and his
family members are law abiding citizens of Pakistan since their forefathers
have been living in Pakistan. Documentary evidence in the shape of BForms, birth certificates, property documents, Nikahnama of the Respondent
with Respondent No. 2, travel history, police clearance certificate, tax record
and utility bills testify this fact. All the Respondents were issued CNICs / BForms by NADRA, particulars of which were disclosed in the plaint. It was
also stated that Passports of some of the Respondents were also made,
particulars of which were also disclosed in the plaint. However, CNICs / BForms and Passports of the Respondents have been blocked by NADRA
without providing an opportunity of hearing and despite being approached,
NADRA is not ready to unblock the same. Hence, it was prayed that
NADRA be directed to restore CNICs and Passports of the Respondents.
4.
NADRA in its written statement raised a number of preliminary
objections with respect to maintainability of the suit. On merits, it was stated
that CNICs / CRCs were issued by NADRA to the Respondents, however,
when Respondent No. 5 applied for CNIC, her application was marked
3 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
under UV category due to doubtful citizenship, therefore, NADRA referred
details of all the Respondents to Intelligence Bureau for verification of their
citizenship but the same could not be confirmed due to non-availability of
any documentary evidence. Thereafter, NADRA issued notices under
Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 (the “NADRA Ordinance”) but
the Respondents did not appear before the Regional Revocation Board (the
“Board”) within stipulated time period, whereafter, their CNICs were
digitally impounded by NADRA in alien category. Copies of show cause
notices and orders were appended with the written statement. It was also
apprised that the Respondent filed W. P. No. 17895 / 2021 and on the
direction of this Court, the Respondents appeared before the Board. CNIC of
Respondent No. 2 (wife of the Respondent) was cleared on the basis of
original MNIC of her father issued in 1974, whereas, CNICs of
Respondent’s children (Respondents No. 3-7) were also cleared on the basis
of record of Respondent No. 2. Nevertheless, the Respondent could not
provide any document regarding himself or his parents prior to 1979 in his
favour other than the CNIC of his wife’s father. As such, CNIC of the
Respondent was cancelled which, however, can be cleared upon provision of
any of the documents in terms of the applicable notification No. 8/37/2016-
NADRA dated 19.04.2014 (the “Notification”) issued by Ministry of
Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and the Respondent can appear
in this behalf with documentary evidence before the Zonal Office of
NADRA. The details of the documents were listed in the written statement
as follows:
a)
Land Record registered prior to 1979 (Verified by the Revenue
Department).
b)
Local Certificate / Domicile prior to 1979 verified by the
issuing authority.
c)
Pedigree (Shajra-e-Nasab) issued and verified by the Revenue
Department.
d)
Government Employment Certificate of an individual or blood
relative (parents / sibling / children) employed prior to 1979.
e)
Verified Educational Certificates prior to 1979.
f)
Passport issued to applicant before 1979.
C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
g)
Any other documents issued by Government of Pakistan prior
to 1979 and verified by issuing authority (including Arm
License, Driving License or Manual NIC issued prior to 1979).
It was specifically stated that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section
19 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (the “Citizenship Act”) which
provides that where citizenship of a person is in doubt, whether on a
question of law or fact, he will make an application in this behalf to the
Federal Government which may grant him a certificate that at the date of the
certificate, he is a citizen of Pakistan. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable
at this stage before exhausting the remedies provided by law.
5.
Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed
the following issues:
1)
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for declaration as
prayed for? OPP
2)
If above issue is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is
entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP
3)
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file instant suit? OPD
4)
Relief.
6.
The Trial Court recorded respective oral as well as
documentary evidence of the parties and proceeded to dismiss the suit by
holding that the Respondent failed to establish his citizenship of Pakistan by
not providing any documentary evidence prior to 1979 in terms of the
Notification and the Respondent failed to avail alternative remedies under
Section 19 of the Citizenship Act and before the Zonal Office of NADRA
with respect to his claim of citizenship by provision of any of the documents
prior to 1979.
7.
Since during pendency of the suit, the grievance of
Respondents No. 2 to 7 had been redressed, therefore, only the Respondent
preferred an Appeal against decision of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court
by reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court decreed suit of the
Respondent as prayed for by merely observing that CNIC of the Respondent
was issued on 29.10.2016 after following due process of law, the other
family members of the Respondent also held valid identity documents and
the Respondent is residing in Pakistan since long which is depicted from the
documentary evidence on record.
5 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
8.
Before proceeding further, the point of limitation is required to
be addressed in the first instance. This Civil Revision is barred by limitation
by a few days and is accompanied by C.M. 1-C / 2023 which states that
delay was caused due to time consumed in seeking formal approval to
institute Civil Revision from the competent authority. The said reason is not
tenable. Nevertheless, the Judgments under examination are at variance and
this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction which is supervisory in
nature has been called upon to consider as to whether the jurisdiction was
rightly or wrongly assumed and exercised in terms of applicable law and
whether the Judgments under scrutiny suffer from patent and material
illegality or infirmity being void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The
matter assumes further significance under the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case since the legal authority of the State to confer or
deny citizenship vis-a-vis the vital rights and interests of a person claiming
citizenship and his entitlement to hold CNIC and Passport are involved.
Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise suo moto jurisdiction conferred upon
this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the
“CPC”) which is, hereby, invoked to override the bar of limitation and the
said application is disposed of, accordingly.
9.
The pivotal question that requires determination by this Court is
as to whether a civil suit for declaration is maintainable in view of the
special laws, such as, the Citizenship Act, the NADRA Ordinance, Passports
Act, 1974 (the “Passports Act”) and the rules, regulations or notifications
issued under such laws which govern grant or refusal of citizenship and the
rights flowing thereunder including issuance, impounding, cancellation or
confiscation of CNICs and Passports. The issue has historical significance in
view of the fact that millions of Afghan refugees were let in as refugees into
Pakistan on humanitarian grounds after eruption of Afghan-Soviet war in
1979 and during their long stay in Pakistan, many got married, had children,
acquired properties, established businesses and obtained identity documents
through fake and unverified documents. The scrutiny of claims to citizenship
and entitlement to hold identity documents are regulated by the laws cited
above in the light of policy framework put in place by the Federal
6 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
Government. Therefore, it is pertinent to examine the remedies available to a
person in his quest to safeguard such invaluable rights.
10.
The Citizenship Act makes provisions for citizenship of
Pakistan. It lists in detail the right of a person to claim citizenship and deals
with various aspects of citizenship including its grant, renunciation,
deprivation and resumption. Under Section 16 of the Citizenship Act, a
citizen can be deprived of his citizenship under specific conditions in
accordance with the procedure stipulated therein. Section 18 of the
Citizenship Act empowers the Federal Government by order to direct that
any power conferred upon it or duty imposed on it by the Citizenship Act
shall, in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be
specified in the direction, be exercised or discharged by such authority or
officer as may be specified. Section 19 of the Citizenship Act deals with
cases of doubtful citizenship and stipulates that where a doubt exists with
respect to citizenship of a person, whether on question of law or fact, he may
make an application in that behalf to the Federal Government which may
grant him a certificate that at the date of the certificate, he is a citizen of
Pakistan. The certificate, unless it is proved to have been obtained by fraud,
false representation or concealment of any material fact, shall be conclusive
evidence of the fact recorded in it. Section 23 of the Citizenship Act
empowers the Federal Government to fame rules for carrying into effect the
provisions of the Citizenship Act. In exercise of such powers, the Pakistan
Citizenship Rules, 1952 (the “Citizenship Rules”) have been framed which
provide a comprehensive mechanism for triggering, determination and
enforcement of various rights of a person under the Citizenship Act. Rule 30
thereof provides that the Federal Government may at any time entertain any
application, appeal, review or revision application and may cancel, suspend,
invalidate, extend or revise any certificate issued under the Citizenship Rules
or pass any other orders, it may deem necessary. Thus, it is evident that in
recognition of legal right of the State to regulate the question of citizenship
of a person, the Federal Government is vested with the jurisdiction to
determine citizenship or otherwise of a person in the first instance and
appropriate remedies are available to an aggrieved person against an adverse
action to approach the Federal Government in that beha
7 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
11.
The Passports Act regulates departure from and entry into
Pakistan and visit to foreign countries of citizens of Pakistan and provides
for matters ancillary thereto. Section 8 thereof is with respect to power to
cancel, impound or confiscate Passports. It provides that a Passport issued
by or on behalf of the Federal Government shall be the property of the
Federal Government and may, by an order under the hand of a Secretary to
the Government of Pakistan, or an officer authorized by the Federal
Government in this behalf, be required to be returned and shall also be liable
to be cancelled, impounded or confiscated by a like order. The said Section
also stipulates procedure in this respect and further grants right to file a
review against an adverse order before the Federal Government. Section 11
thereof allows the Federal Government to delegate any of its powers or
functions in such circumstances and subject to such conditions, if any, as
may be specified in the notification, to any officer or authority subordinate
to it or by any Provincial Government or by any officer or authority to such
Government. Section 13 thereof empowers the Federal Government to frame
rules for carrying out purposes of the Passports Act. The Passports Rules,
2021 prescribe detailed provisions with respect to various aspects of
Passports. Rule 23 thereof deals with impounding, confiscation, cancellation
and inactivation of Passport. It follows from the above that Passport to a
person in Pakistan is issued under the authority of the Federal Government
and against an adverse action, remedy in terms of review is available to an
aggrieved person.
12.
The NADRA Ordinance has been promulgated for the
establishment of NADRA to facilitate registration of all persons and the
establishment and maintenance of multipurpose databases, data warehouses,
networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities. Section 5 thereof
deals with the purposes, objects, functions and powers of NADRA. Section
5(4)(b) of the NADRA Ordinance empowers NADRA to issue or renew, or
cause to be issued or renewed, to any prescribed class or classes of persons,
including citizens, foreigners and emigrants, or to any prescribed class or
classes of things, who have got themselves, or who or which have been,
registered in the prescribed manner issued cards in the prescribed form and
manner and on such criteria and for such period of validity thereof on such
8 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
terms and conditions as may be prescribed and may receive applications
therefor in the prescribed form. Section 5(4)(f) thereof empowers NADRA
to perform any other function and exercise any other power as may be
entrusted to or vested in it by the Federal Government which is
supplemental, incidental or consequential to any of the aforesaid powers and
functions and the objects and purpose of NADRA. Section 8(1) of the
NADRA Ordinance provides that the Federal Government may by rules
provide for registration of different persons or classes thereof, wherever they
may be, including citizens, foreigners and emigrants and for different things
or classes thereof, whatever they may be, and along therewith provide for the
method of such registration, manner and form of applications to be made
therefor, fee or other sum to be charged therefor. Section 9(1) of the
NADRA Ordinance mandates that every citizen in or outside from Pakistan
who has attained the age of eighteen years shall get himself and a parent or
guardian of every citizen who has not attained that age shall, not later than
one month after the birth of such citizen, get such citizen registered in
accordance with the provisions of the NADRA Ordinance subject to
provisos contained therein. According to Section 10 of the NADRA
Ordinance, National Identity Cards are issued or renewed to the citizens of
Pakistan subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Similarly, NADRA
Ordinance also grants power to NADRA regarding issuance of Pakistan
Origin Cards, Overseas Identity Cards and Alien Registration Cards subject
to conditions prescribed in the relevant provisions thereof. Importantly,
Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance deals with power to cancel, impound
or confiscate cards issued thereunder. It provides that a card issued under the
NADRA Ordinance shall be the property of the Federal Government and
may, by an order in writing under the seal of NADRA or an officer
authorized by it in this behalf, be required to be returned and shall also be
liable to be cancelled, impounded or confiscated by a like order if there is
reason to believe that the card has been obtained by a person not eligible to
hold the same by posing himself as eligible; more than one cards have been
obtained by the same person on the same eligibility criteria; the particulars
shown on the card have been obliterated or tampered with; or the card is
forged. The said Section also provides for a right of appeal to the Federal
9 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
Government with provision of right of hearing to the aggrieved person.
Section 37 of the NADRA Ordinance allows delegation of powers. Sections
44 & 45 thereof empowers the Federal Government and NADRA to make
rules and regulations, respectively. Section 46 thereof provides that the
provisions of the NADRA Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Accordingly,
apart from other set of rules and regulations, the National Database and
Registration Authority (National Identity Cards) Rules, 2002 and the
National Database and Registration Authority (Application for National
Identity Cards) Regulations, 2002 have been framed prescribing detailed
mechanism to further regulate various provisions of the NADRA Ordinance.
Therefore, it is unequivocally manifest that the NADRA Ordinance as a
special law deals with all aspects of identity cards and confers remedies and
solutions against adverse orders passed in that behalf.
13.
There are not two opinions that one of the most indispensable
basic rights of an individual is that of citizenship which is the sole and
effective bond with the State. This enables the individual to exercise and
enjoy all rights guaranteed by the State and entitles him for protection
accorded by the State. The significance of such basic right of the individual
is evident from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 15
thereof provides that “everyone has the right of nationality. No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality”. Further, rights qua entitlement to Passport and CNIC is subject
matter of the Passports Act and the NADRA Ordinance. The conclusion
drawn from the conjunctive examination of the aforesaid laws is that
specialized laws are in place to deal with all issues regarding citizenship,
CNIC and Passport in recognition of legal right of the State to regulate the
same. The Federal Government representing the State itself or through its
instrumentalities created under the law is vested with the powers to regulate
such rights and in the event of an adverse order, the aggrieved person is
conferred the right to challenge the same by way of appeal, revision or
review, as the case may be, under such laws. Although, the Citizenship Act,
the Passports Act and the NADRA Ordinance do not expressly bar the
jurisdiction of civil courts yet they impliedly do so by providing self-
10 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
contained mechanisms regarding all issues with respect to citizenship,
Passports and CNICs, respectively with alternative remedies against adverse
orders. This is also the mandate of Section 9 of the CPC which confers
plenary jurisdiction on civil courts to “try all suits of a civil nature excepting
suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred for
which a general or special law is in force.” In tandem with the above rule of
law is the settled proposition that special laws prevail over general
provisions. Therefore, it is imperative that as a normal rule, if a statute
creates a right or liability not existing in common law and provides a
machinery for enforcing that right, such remedies should be fully exhausted
before resorting to the Court of plenary jurisdiction or a constitutional Court,
as the case may be, depending upon the facts and circumstances of a
particular case, unless the impugned action is inherently without jurisdiction,
coram non judice, void ab initio, ultra vires, mala fide or illegal. Reliance in
this regard is placed on cases titled “West Punjab Government versus PindiJhelum Valley Transport Ltd., Rawalpindi and six others” (PLD 1953
Lahore 339) and “Muhammad Siddique (Deceased) through LRs and Others
versus Mst. Noor Bibi (Deceased) through LRs and Others” (2020 SCMR
483). The same principle was applied in the context of Section 18 of the
NADRA Ordinance in cases titled “Najeebullah and others versus Director
NADRA, Balochistan, Quetta and others” (PLD 2016 Balochistan 1) and
“Gul Shereen Bibi versus Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary
Ministry of Interior and 5 others” (2016 CLC 1928). Hence, direct resort to
a Court of competent jurisdiction or to a constitutional Court in presence of
alternate remedies provided by law would ordinarily make the grievance not
maintainable.
14.
A few relevant cases need to be cited as well. In case titled,
“Saeed Abdi Mahmud versus National Database Registration Authority
through Chairman and 03 others” (2018 CLC 1588), the Court dealt with the
case of a person who was denied issuance of CNIC against his claim of
citizenship by birth. The Court traced history of the Citizenship Act and
opined that any person who is born in Pakistan shall be considered a citizen
of Pakistan in terms of Section 4 of the Citizenship Act and his case has to
11 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
be considered under Rule 8 of the Citizenship Rules. The Petitioner therein
was thus asked to approach the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan
which was directed to decide his application, accordingly. However, the
Court conspicuously excluded persons who entered Pakistan as refugees by
holding that the Citizenship Act does not apply to refugees by relying upon
case titled, “Ghulam Sanai versus The Assistant Director, National
Registration Office, Peshawar and another” (PLD 1999 Peshawar 18)
which holds that Afghan refugees are not governed by the Citizenship Act
but under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Nevertheless, the issue as to the
applicability of the Citizenship Act or the Foreigners Act, 1946 is not in
issue in the instant case, as the claim of the Respondent asserted in the plaint
is that he is a citizen of Pakistan.
15.
The Respondent has placed reliance on two cases that also
deserve consideration. In the context of citizenship, it has been held in case
titled “Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor versus Government of Pakistan through
Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others” (PLD 2021
Islamabad 305) that the Citizenship Act is a complete self-contained special
statute to deal with all matters relating to ‘citizenship’ of the State of
Pakistan. It further provides that the competent authority empowered under
the Citizenship Act may only deal with issues regarding status of citizenship
of a person who has been registered as a citizen and NADRA is bereft of
jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on the basis of reports received from
intelligence agencies regarding status of citizenship of a person who has
been registered as a citizen. Rather, NADRA can, at best, report a case of
alleged fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts along with
the relevant material, to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act.
There is no cavil to the afore-noted proposition. However, facts of the said
case are entirely different than that of the case in hand for the reason that
birth of the Petitioner therein on 19.10.1968 was not denied, whereas, in the
instant case, NADRA had required the Petitioner in terms of Section 18(2)
of the NADRA Ordinance read with the Notification to demonstrate that he
had not obtained CNIC as an ineligible person by posing himself as eligible.
Therefore, a clear remedy was available with the Respondent within the
12 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
ambit of the NADRA Ordinance to establish that he had obtained his CNIC
as an eligible person. It is only in the event of his inability to establish the
same followed by the decision in appeal that case of the Respondent can be
taken up by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act or any other
applicable law, as the case may be, otherwise there would be nothing for the
latter to decide. In other words, once the final determination qua eligibility
of the Respondent to hold CNIC by NADRA is made, only then status of the
Respondent as ‘citizen’, ‘refugee’ or ‘alien’ would become clear to him with
respect to the applicability or otherwise of the Citizenship Act enabling him
to have further recourse to appropriate remedy.
16.
The second case relied upon by the Respondent is titled, “Mst.
Rukhsana Bibi and others versus Government of Pakistan and others” (PLD
2016 Lahore 857) which holds that Section 10(2) of the Citizenship Act is
discriminatory since it only confers the right to an alien woman married to a
Pakistani national to claim citizenship vis-Ã -vis an alien male migrated to
Pakistan and married to a Pakistani woman who is denied such right and as
such, the latter is liable to be accorded with the same protection of law.
Suffice is to hold that in order to consider the proposition, the Respondent
was required to assert that he is not a citizen of Pakistan which is contrary to
the stance taken by him in his plaint. Hence, this case is of no help to the
Respondent.
17.
Reverting to the facts of the case, the Respondent directly
instituted a declaratory suit before the Civil Court, although NADRA in
plain and clear words had taken the plea that the said suit was not
maintainable in view of Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance and had also
provided a clear opportunity to the Respondent to appear before the Zonal
Office of NADRA to establish that he has obtained his CNIC as an eligible
person by providing any of the documents listed in the Notification. The suit
was not maintainable on several counts. Firstly, the Respondent asserted his
right to citizenship by birth and by decent and his entitlement to hold CNIC
and Passport but failed to implead the Federal Government, the designated
officer in terms of the Passports Act and NADRA as an authority as parties
to the suit. Rather, the Respondent simply impleaded the functionaries i.e.
the Chairman, NADRA and the Manager, NADRA as Defendant
13 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
settled law that where the Court considers it necessary that a person ought to
have been impleaded has not been made a party, this leads to failure to prove
one’s case. Reliance in this regard is placed on case titled “Nasrullah Khan
and another versus Mst. Khairunnisa and others” (2020 SCMR 2101).
Moreover, reference is also made to Section 79 of the CPC which provides
for the mode and way in which suits by or against the Government be
instituted. For reference see case titled “Government of Balochistan,
CWPP&H Department and others versus Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain
Khan Magsi and others” (2010 SCMR 115), wherein, it is held that due to
non-compliance of the mandatory provisions enumerated in Section 79 of
the CPC and Article 174 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973, a suit against the functionary is not maintainable.
18.
Secondly, after blocking CNICs of the Respondents, NADRA
issued notice(s) under Section 18(1) read with Section 17(2) of the NADRA
Ordinance for cancellation of CNIC of the Respondent. The Respondent
appeared before the Board with required documents listed in the Notification
for verification of his eligibility as holder of CNIC where relief was
extended to his family members by the Board but denied to the Respondent
as he did not provide any of the documents listed in the Notification.
Consequently, CNIC of the Respondent was digitally impounded but the
said order has not been challenged by the Respondent to date before any
forum. This is evident from Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the plaint which
restrict the cause of action to blocking of CNICs and erroneously state that
the Respondents are left with no other efficacious and alternate remedy to
redress their grievance but to invoke the ‘constitutional jurisdiction’ of the
Court.
19.
Thirdly, claim of the Respondent is that he is a citizen by birth
and decent and as such, entitled to hold CNIC and Passport yet he did not
approach the specialized forums prescribed for under the special laws
discussed above which were bypassed and he resorted to the Court of
ultimate jurisdiction before exhausting such remedies. Hence, it is evident
that the suit of the Respondent was not maintainable
14 C. R. No. 21451 / 2023
20.
Therefore, the Trial Court in terms of alternate remedies
provided by the NADRA Ordinance read with the Notification and Section
19 of the Citizenship Act rightly proceeded to dismiss the suit by holding
that the documentary evidence brought on record did not establish
entitlement of the Petitioner for relief in terms of the criteria prescribed in
the Notification. However, the Appellate Court fell in error by decreeing the
suit without repelling the reasons of the Trial Court. Hence, it is apparent
that the impugned Judgment of the Appellate Court is based on complete
misapplication of law, misreading and non-reading of evidence on record
and suffers from perversity of reasoning, as such, cannot be sustained.
21.
For the reasons recorded above, this Civil Revision is allowed
and the impugned Judgment dated 17.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Court
is set aside. However, in view of the concession accorded by NADRA, the
Respondent is free to avail alternate remedies afresh as provided under the
applicable law without bar of limitation within a period of 30 days from the
date of this Judgment.
(Abid Hussain Chattha)
Judge
Approved for reporting.
Judge
Announced in open Court on 21.06.2024.
Judg
Comments
Post a Comment