' K. A. GHANI, J.-By this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 21-7-1980 and 30-3-1980 respectively whereby they rejected the application and refused to grant P. R. C. To the petitioner. The petition was allowed by us by a short order passed on 27-4-1981 following are the reasons for the same.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner had migrated to Pakistan in 1950 and settled at Thatta. There he took up service under the Government of Sind in P. W. D. In 1951. In due course of time he was promoted as Overseer from which post he retired in 1966 while still posted at Thatta. The grandmother of the petitioner Mst. Hamida widow of Qazi Ehsanuddin was also residing at Thatta alongwith the petitioner and her father. The petitioner's father purchased in the name of his mother Mst. Hamida, a residential house and two god owns at Thatta.
3. The petitioner was born at Thatta on 15-4-1963. She also got beer primary education at Thatta where she studied till 1971 in Government Urdu School, Thatta. Her three brothers and two sisters were also born at Thatta. The petitioner's father for all this period from 1951 till 1973, continuously resided at Thatta. However as he was suffering from T. B. And had to visit Karachi frequently for treatment and consultations, in 1973 he started temporarily residing at Karachi in a rented house as he could not withstand strain and expenses on account of these frequent journies to Karachi due to his illness. He was granted domicile certificate by the District Magistrate, Thatta on 22-2- 1973. The National Identity Card dated 22-4-1974 also gives the address of the petitioner's father at House No, 87/A, Palang Para, Thatta. The immovable properties at Thatta standing in the name of Mst. Hamida on her death in 1980, devolved upon the petitioner's father.
' In the circumstances stated above the petitioner who had also started living with her ailing father at Karachi, joined educational institution at Karachi, passed her Intermediate Science Pre-Medical Group examination.
4. Thus having qualified for admission to Medical College, she applied for grant of P. R. C. Certificate for the purposes of admission to Medical College against one of the seats reserved for the girl candidates for Thatta District. She appended to the application made by her, the necessary documents in support of her claim for grant of P. R. C.
5. The respondent No, 2 however without, any hearing rejected the application by order passed on 30-3-1980 against which order the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1 who by order dated 21-7-1980 rejected the same.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the respondent No, 2 rejecting her aforementioned application was against the principle of natural justice as the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner or giving her any opportunity of being heard.
' As regards the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 the learned counsel submitted that the grounds on which the petitioner was refused P. R. C. Of Thatta District were that the petitioner and her father have no permanent abode at Thatta since last 5/6 years and that the property which belonged to the petitioner's grandmother was inherited by the petitioner on 13-4-1980 I e.
After the application for P. R. C. Was rejected by the District Magistrate, Thatta and that the petitioner was not able to produce any documentary evidence in support of her claim of permanent residence at Thatta. The learned counsel urged that the impugned order is vitiated being against the Sind Permanent Residence Rules, 1971 and relied upon rule 6 (i) which reads as follows :- Rule 6, sub-rule (i): "6. No person shall be eligible for grant of a certificate in Form 'C' unless-
(i) he was born in any area forming a part of Sind, and further-
(a) in the case of a person of legitimate birth, at the time of his birth, his father was domiciled in Sind, or if he was born after the death of his father, the latter, at the time of his death, was domiciled in Sind, or
(b) in the case of a person of illegitimate birth, his mother, at the time of his birth, was domiciled in Sind; or"
7. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record has been completely ignored and misread by the learned respondents Nos. 1 and 2 inasmuch as the petitioner had produced the birth certificate which expressly showed that the petitioner was born at Thatta on 15-4-1963 and had got her primary education at Government Urdu School at Thatta. She also produced the School Leaving Certificate in proof of her claim. Copy of the service book and domicile certificate of her father had also been submitted to show that her father is domiciled in Sind and is permanently settled at Thatta and was in the employment of Government of Sind posted at Thatta. The continuous permanent residence of the petitioner's father from 1951 till 1973 for a long period of 23 years, even after his retirement in 1966 from Government Service is not denied. It is also not disputed that he purchased a residential house and two godowns at Thatta in the name of his mother. It is evident from record that only because of his illness the petitioner's father came to Karachi temporarily for the purposes of treatment and had no intention to abandon his abode at Thatta. The claim of the petitioner that her father and she herself, are permanent residents of Thatta District, is also supported by National Identity Card produced which shows that her father is the resident of House No, 87-A, Palang Para, Thatta. This house is now his ancestoral house, formerly owned/purchased in the name of petitioner's grandmother, and after her death has devolved upon petitioners' father. It is also important to note here that her three brothers and two sisters were also born at Thatta. We have already noted above that the petitioner was born in Thatta and her father is domiciled in Sind. These undisputed facts, fully establish the requirements of rules 4 and 6 (1) of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. The refusal of the Certificate merely on the ground that the petitioner got secondary education and college education at Karachi where her father has resided for last 5/6 years on account of his illness for purposes of treatment would therefore not disentitle the petitioner to the grant of P. R. C. For District Thatta under the above-mentioned rules of 1971. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner or her father abandoned the intention to retain their permanent abode at Thatta. The petitioner's father still owns immovable properties at Thatta. In spite of the fact that in 1973, the petitioner's father came to Karachi for treatment on account of his illness, in 1974 when he gets his National Identity Card his permanent address shown therein is that of the ancestral house at Palang Para, Thatta. This further proves the fact that the petitioner's father never abandoned his abode at Thatta.
' It is evident that while applying rule 6 the respondent No. 1 misdirected himself by refusing to grant P. R. C. On the alleged ground that the petitioner's father has no permanent abode at Thatta since last 5/6 yeaRs, There is nothing in the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, which could justify the conclusion so reached by the respondent No. 1, particularly here we have a case of student who was born at Thatta and her father is domiciled in Sind, and has his residential house at Thatta.
' We may refer to principles laid down in the case of Taj Muhammad v. Commissioner, Hyderabad Division (1) wherein the case of grant of P. R. C. To Noor Ahmad came up for consideration. Noor Ahmad is the son of Mr. Aftab Ahmad Akhund, an Advocate, who is continuously residing at Hyderabad and where he is practising as an advocate. Noor Ahmad got education and resided with his father at Hyderabad. The learned Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice I.
Mahmud and Mr. Justice Zaffar Hussain Mirza, found that these facts would not justify cancellation of P. R. C. Granted to Noor Ahmad for Thatta District as there was no intention on the part of the said persons to abandon to retain permanent abode in Chuhar Jamali in Thatta District. Applying the same principle to the facts of this case we do not find that the petitioner's father who continuously resided at Thatta for a period of 23 years and owns immovable property in the name of his mother, and where the petitioner besides her three brother {{FOOT NOTE}} 0) 1979 CLC 2,37 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' TAIYAB A. KAPADIA V. ZIAUDDIN BARNI (Alma! Mian, 1267 and two sisters, was born and got primary education, could be refused the P. R. C. Of that area merely on the ground that her father for purposes of his treatment has been residing temporarily at Karachi for a short period of 5/6 years, as against continuous residence of 23 years at Thatta. Further there is no evidence that petitioner or her father has any house at Karachi.
' In view of the above discussions we find that requisite conditions under rules 4 and 6 of Sind Permanent Residence Rules, 1971 were duly fulfilled by the petitioner so as to entitle to the grant of P.
R. C. Of District Thatta. B Accordingly we hold that the impugned orders passed on 21-7-1980 and 30-3-1980 by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
' We accordingly allow this petition and direct that the P. R. C. Be issued to the petitioner in respect of Thatta District in accordance with the Rules.
' The petition was disposed of by us on 27-4-1981 in the following terms: "ORDER OF THE COURT ' For reasons to be recorded separately we allow the petition with costs and grant the following reliefs :
(1) We declare the impugned orders to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(2) We direct the respondent No, 2 to issue a Permanent Residence Certificate in favour of the petitioner."
The above are the reasons for passing the aforesaid order.