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.

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

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?

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.

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:

Land Record registered prior to 1979 (Verified by the Revenue

Department).

Local Certificate / Domicile prior to 1979 verified by the

issuing authority.

Pedigree (Shajra-e-Nasab) issued and verified by the Revenue

Department.

Government Employment Certificate of an individual or blood

relative (parents / sibling / children) employed prior to 1979.

Verified Educational Certificates prior to 1979.

Passport issued to applicant before 1979.

C. R. No. 21451 / 2023

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.

Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed

the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for declaration as

prayed for? OPP

If above issue is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is

entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file instant suit? OPD

Relief.

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.

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

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.

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-à-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

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.