' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order, dated 30-4-2009 passed by respondent No,1 through which he has cancelled the Domicile Certificate of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that he applied for issuance of Domicile Certificate in his name and after observing the legal formalities respondent No,1 issued the said Certificate in favour of the petitioner on 21-11-2003. Application for two posts of process server from the office of Senior Civil Judge, Khushab were invited and the petitioner applied for one of the same. Then on 5-5-2004 Muhammad Nawaz respondent No,2 moved an application for cancellation of the Domicile Certificate issued to the petitioner with the allegation that the same was procured by producing fake and fabricated documents attached therein. An inquiry was got conducted by respondent No,1 wherein statement of the Lambardar was also recorded and the application was rejected. On 24-5-2005 respondent No,2 filed an appeal which has been accepted through the impugned order, dated 30-4-2009. Hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, the registration of a person is to be made as a Pakistani and Certificate of Domicile is issued in this connection, but there is no provision that the Certificate of Domicile can be issued for a specific District. It is also contended that earlier the DCO had rejected the application of the respondent, but then appeal was filed, which could not be heard by respondent No,1 against his own order, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Addl. A.-G. On the other hand opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner had committed a fraud and produced forged documents i,e, I.D. Card No,38404-1005537-5, dated 20- 6-2008 after about five years from the date of issuance of domicile certificate. The petitioner has also produced I.D. Card No,235-44-045935 and Voter List of Muhammad Nawaz son of Gulab Khan r/o Mohallah Dittaywali Street No,6, Khushab showing him as his father fraudulently whereas the name of his grandfather is Muhammad Rafique but the complainant Muhammad Nawaz respondent No,2 has produced copies of I.D. Card of the petitioner Muhammad Arif, voter list and copy of Muhammad Nawaz father of the petitioner and the name of the grand-father is Muhammad Rafique, voter list serial No,164 resident of kotla Sayyadan Tehsil Shahpur District Sargodha and when this fraud was discovered this ID has been cancelled and the writ should not be issued in favour of a fraudulent person.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with the writ petition. It is not denied by the petitioner that on 21-11-2003 two posts of process servers had been filled in District Khushab and the petitioner applied for the same showing him resident of District Khushab by disclosing that the name of his father was Muhammad Nawab who was son of Gulab Khan, resident of Mohallah Dittaywala Street No,6, Khushab. According to the inquiry report this address and parentage name of Muhammad Nawaz was shown fraudulently as this was another person in the name of Muhammad Nawaz and he was resident of the said place which was mentioned by him but the name of the father of the petitioner was Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad Rafique having ID No, 38404-1005537-5, dated 20-6-2008, voter list -serial No, 165 and address was given as Kotla Sayyadan Tehsil Shahpur District Sargodha. It also came to the notice during inquiry that the father of Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad Rafique had purchased 7 Marlas plot situated in Mauza Hadali District Khushab on 22-6-2007 i,e, after a period of four years from the issuance of Domicile Certificate just to protect the forgery. The petitioner also obtained I.D.
On 20-6-2008 after five years of the issuance of Domicile Certificate in his favour. According to the report submitted by the DCO, on detection of fraud a complaint under section 177, P.P.C. Has been lodged against the petitioner in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khushab.
6. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal could not be heard by the DCO is concerned, it is noticed that on the application moved by respondent No,2 an inquiry was conducted and report was submitted before the DCO in favour of the petitioner on 30-9-2003, which was only seen and no mind was applied by the DCO who only agreed with the report that the application may be filed but the present order has been passed by the DCO after holding a detailed inquiry which proved that the fraud has been committed by the petitioner. He was actually resident of District Sargodha and he could not be issued domicile certificate in District Khushab.
The main question in the present case is whether the petitioner had genuinely obtained the Domicile Certificate and he was actually resident of District Khushab. From the above-said inquiry which is supported by the evidence on the record the petitioner was not resident of District Khushab but he was resident of District Sargodha and he has usurped the right of the A residents of District Khushab for their appointment as process servers in their District. I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary discretion in favour of the petitioner, who has not come to the Court with clean hand and also defrauded the authorities for procuring Domicile Certificate in his favour while producing forged documents. Hence I see no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.