1. JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---Facts, in brief, are that petitioner No,1 was appointed in the Police Department, Government of Balochistan and was posted in District Pishin, in the year 1984. At that time, he had no domicile certificate, however, he, for the first time in the year, 2006, applied for the issuance of a domicile certificate from Pishin. He enlisted petitioner No,2 in the domicile certificate being his son. Petitioner No,2, later on, applied for the separation of his certificate, which was granted to him in the year 2008. Respondent No,1, after receiving an objection regarding both the domicile certificates, conducted an inquiry and has cancelled both the certificates by means of an order dated 1st April, 2009, hence, this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of the fact that petitioner No,1 is serving in the Police Department at District Pishin as a constable, his domicile certificate has been cancelled on the ground that he is not permanently residing there. Petitioner No,2, being son of petitioner No,1, has separated his certificate from the domicile certificate of his father, but his domicile certificate has also been cancelled contrary to the facts and material available on record.
2. According to him, once the certificates have been issued to the petitioners, a right has been created in their favour, therefore, they cannot be deprived of it. The learned Additional Advocate-General strongly opposed the contention and argued that petitioner No,1 was employed in the Police Department as a constable in the year, 1984, but he did not opt to obtain the certificate till the year 2006. The petitioners are permanently residing at Dera Ghazi Khan and their place of residence mentioned in their certificates is temporary and only for the purpose of getting benefits of the backward District. He stated that due to their misstatement and concealment of facts, respondent No,1 has rightly cancelled their domicile certificates. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The matter pertains to a domicile certificate, therefore, the purpose and meaning of a domicile has to be considered at first. The word 'Domicile' has not been defined under the Citizenship Act, 1951. The Black's Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition), defines the word ' Domicile' as a person's true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere.--also termed permanent abode. . Plain reading of the definition gives the meaning of a domicile as proof of a permanent residence of a person. The concept of a permanent residence as defined in the terms of a domicile is of two types, one by birth and the other by choice. A person, who desires to select his permanent residence by choice means that he intends to relinquish his original place of abode and to choose another place for the purpose of his permanent residence. Once the facts of relinquishment and acquisition are established, a domicile undergoes a change and the person acquires a new domicile and has a permanent home, at least in the notional sense at the new place. The domicile has to be considered a synonym for home. The domicile has been discussed by Lord Granworth in the case of Whicher v. Home, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "By domicile we mean home; the permanent home; and if you do not understand your permanent home, I am afraid that no illustration drawn from foreign writers or I think the best I have heard is one which describes the home as the place 'Uncle sitdiseess-urus-sl nihi avocet unde cum profectusest peregrinarividetur. I think that the best illustration and I use that word rather than definition, to describe what I mean."
3. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the domicile certificate is a, prima facie, proof of the place of permanent residence of a person, who intends to permanently reside at a particular place.
4. The Oxford Dictionary has defined the word 'permanent' as "lasting or expected to last for a long time or forever", whereas the word 'temporary' has been defined as "lasting or meant to last for a limited time only". Similarly, the word 'Residence' has been defined as a house, the state of living in a particular place. Thus, the perthanent residence means the state of living at a particular place for all the time or at least for a longtime, whereas a temporary residence means living for a short time.
5. There are two stages of a domicile certificate, one is, that when the person intended to permanently reside at a particular place, as such, applies for a domicile certificate. Secondly, after obtaining a domicile certificate, the holder of a certificate continues to permanently residing at a particular place. Thus, in the first circumstance, when a person applies for a domicile certificate; the authority. Has to consider as to whether the applicant relinquished his earlier permanent place of residence before selecting his new place of domicile. As far as the second circumstance is concerned, the authority on its own or on the objection of any person concerned can conduct an inquiry With regard to a permanent residence of a holder of a certificate for a particular place. Admittedly, petitioner No,1 was appointed as constable in the police department in the year 1984 without having a domicile certificate of District Pishin. He obtained it in the year, 2006, mentioning his residence as Teachers' Colony, District Pishin. It is important to point out here that at the time of applying for the certificate, the CNIC was issued to petitioner No,1 in the year, 2002. It indicates his temporary and permanent residence as "Bassi Khail Sokhar, Post Office Khas, Tehsil Tonsa and District Dera Ghazi Khan". Petitioner No,l, later on, obtained another CNIC in the year, 2009. This time, he changed his temporary residence as "Teacher's Colony, Pishin", but his permanent residence remained as District Dera Ghazi Khan in it. In his certificate, though he has mentioned the names of his children, showing their arrival at Pishin, but the academic documents relied upon by petitioner No,2 indicates his place of education, as District Dera Ghazi Khan. In their petition too, the petitioners stated the fact that their family is residing at Dera Ghazi Khan for the purpose of a better education. The material available on record, especially the CNIC of petitioner No,1, proves his intention to permanently reside in District Dera Ghazi Khan. It is a fact that from the date of his appqintment till May, 2006, he did not apply fora domicile certificate of District Pishin. In the domicile certificate, he has shown his date of arrival at District Pishin as 1984. He has neither expressed his intention to relinquish his permanent place of abode from Dera Ghazi Khan, nor disclosed his willingness to choose the District Pishin as his new permanent residence. Moreover, no document has been placed no record to prove that his family ever shifted to Pishin, either temporarily or permanently.
6. The temporary residence of petitioner No,1 in District Pishin is only being employed there. As far as petitioner No,2 is concerned, he was, admittedly, residing at Dera Ghazi Khan. He completed his entire education from there, as such, there is no material on record to .Show his temporary or permanent residence at Pishin. He simply separated his certificate from his father, without his relinquishment from his permanent resident of Dera Ghazi Khan. Mentioning the name of petitioner No,2 in the domicile certificate of his father is not enough to prove his intention to reside at Pishin. It seems that the authority, while granting the *domicile certificates, has not properly, considered the above stated facts. There is no proof on record, showing that, at the relevant time, petitioner No,1 had relinquished his permanent residence from Dera Ghazi Khan and opted to reside permanently in District Pishin. The petitioners have concealed the material facts and false declaration was made at the time of obtaining the domicile certificates. The record indicates that the, applications of the petitioners were not properly processed and detailed inquiry in this behalf was not conducted. The CNIC of petitioner No,1, alone, was indicative of the fact that his both temporary and permanent residence were of the District Dera Ghazi Khan. The certificates have been obtained, only for the purpose of getting benefits, meant for 'the people of the backward area of Balochistan. Even the petitioners have not produced any document or evidence to prove their intention to shift to District Pishin. No doubt, petitioner No,1 is performing his duties there for a long period, but mere length of his stay at Pishin by itself does not create a right to obtain a domicile certificate, nor it establishes his permanent residence. A person being a permanent resident of place 'A' may select to reside temporarily at place '13' in connection of his service, business etc, but it does not entitle him to claim his temporary residence as a permanent one, without following the above criteria. Same is the case of petitioner No,1, as he is residing temporarily in Pishin in connection of his service. The petitioners have failed to produce a single proof of their permanent resident in District Pishin at the time of obtaining the certificates. To the contrary, the Councilor, Naib Nazim and Nazim of Union Council City, Pishin have verified that the petitioners are not residents of the District Pishin.
7. There is no provision of law that the authority's hands are tied. Once it has issued a domicile certificate, it has the powers to cancel it, in case it is proved that the same had been obtained by means of fraud, misdeclaration, misrepresentation or concealment of any material facts. In such a situation, an action is to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1951. In view of above, it is proved that the certificates have been obtained by the petitioners by means of concealment and misrepresentation of facts and made a false declaration, therefore, resppndent No,1, after proper scrutiny, has come to a just and proper conclusion and has rightly cancelled the certificates. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional defect in the impugned order to interfere, hence, we are not inclined to accept the petition, which is hereby dismissed in limine.