MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.--Chaudhri Nur Muhammad petitioner claims to be a displaced person from East Punjab and is said to have settled down in Tehsil Mastung, District Kalat. He is the owner of a plot of land in that locality which he is said to have purchased for construction of a house. He is presently serving as Sub-Divisional Officer, Highways, in Kalat. He has no intention whatsoever of settling down elsewhere in the near future. Since his son was desirous of seeking admission to the Engineering College, he applied for one of the seats reserved for the Quetta-Kalat Region after passing his Intermediate Examination in Science. His daughter has similarly passed the Intermediate Science Examination and is desirous of obtaining admission into a Medical College but she also can succeed only if one of the seats meant for that Region is allocated to her. He applied for a certificate of domicile to respondent No, 2 under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 on 2nd September 1968. This application is said to have been rejected on 10th September 1968, but no intimation whatsoever was given to him till 28th October 1969. The petitioner has felt aggrieved and has, therefore, filed this petition.
2. The learned Advocate-General appeared in response to a notice from us and by our order of even date we accepted the petition and declared the impugned order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We further directed the District Magistrate, Kalat, to proceed to dispose of the application of the petitioner with all despatch strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and rule 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, uninfluenced by any Instructions outside these two pieces of legislation. Costs were awarded to the petitioner against the respondents. Our reasons are as follows :- In a letter addressed to the Section Officer Citizenship, Government of West Pakistan, Home Department, Lahore (copy Annexure `G'), the Deputy Commissioner, Kalat informed the former that the criteria for the grant of a domicile certificate to a person is- (i)that the applicant has been residing in a District continuously for not less than one year ; (ii)that the applicant intends to settle in the District permanently and that he is not a domiciled resident of any other District ; (iii)that the applicant must possess immovable property in that district and that is an additional qualification which lends support to one's claim for grant of a domicile certificate.
He admitted that the petitioner had purchased a piece of land, but the motive for purchase was suspected to be only an attempt to obtain a domicile certificate. It was further added that he had not yet erected a house on it. It was further alleged that the grant of a domicile certificate was not a matter of right but was discretionary with the District Magistrate. We are afraid, this is a highly autocratic view of the law and cannot but be repelled. Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, provides that-- "The Central Government may upon an application being made to it in the prescribed manner containing the prescribed particulars grant a certificate of domicile to any person in respect of whom it is satisfied that he has ordinarily resided in Pakistan for a period of not less than one year immediately before the making of the application, and has acquired a, domicile therein."
Under this section, the only condition precedent is that the Government should be satisfied that the petitioner has resided in Pakistan in a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the application. The letter, quoted above, clearly shows that it is admitted by the Deputy Commissioner, who is a delegate of the Government under section 18 of the Act that the petitioner has ordinarily resided there for much longer than one year. Rule 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, runs as follows :- "23. Certificate of domicile.--The Central Government, the Provincial Government or any District Magistrate authorised by the Provincial Government in this behalf may on application made to it in this behalf issue a certificate of domicile in Form 'Pr in the manner following :-
(a) An application for a certificate of domicile shall be made in Form 'P' in duplicate. It shall be accompanied by an affidavit affirming the truth of the statements made in it and affirming further that the applicant had not migrated to India after the first day of March 1947, or that, having so migrated, had returned to Pakistan under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by an officer authorised by the Government of Pakistan.
(b)Any authority to whom an application is presented may demand such evidence as it may consider necessary for satisfying itself that the facts stated in the application are correct and that the applicant has been continually resident in Pakistan for a period not less than one year and intends to live permanently in Pakistan.
(c)The authority, shall pass such orders on the application as it deems fit."
Subsection (b) empowers the authority concerned to require evidence to be produced for satisfying itself that the facts stated in the application are correct and that the continual period of residence of the applicant in Pakistan is not less than one year and that he intends to live permanently in Pakistan. The petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan, is in the service of Pakistan, has stated on oath that he intends to live permanently in Pakistan. No better evidence could be forthcoming or could be expected. He has similarly sworn that he has been living in Pakistan for a large number of years. His Service Record itself shows that. The other particulars that the petitioner was required to specify in Form 'P' are as follows :- (1)His name (2)His father's name (3)Age (4)Place of residence (5)Former place of residence (6)Date of arrival in and the name of the Tehsil, District, Province/Administration (7)The date of arrival in Pakistan (8)Name and date of the permit or passport (9)Period of continuous residence in Pakistan immediately preceding the application
(10) Expression of intention to abandon domicile or Region
(11) A declaration of intention to take up fixed inhabitant in Pakistan during the remainder of his life
(12) A declaration that he had not migrated to India and had returned to Pakistan between 1-3- 1947 to the date of application except on a valid permit and the number, date and place of office of such permit.
All this information has admittedly been given by the petitioner.
3. If all the conditions prescribed in section 17 and, rule 23, quoted above, are specified, the authority "may" grant the domicile certificate. It was on the use of the word "may"' that the Deputy Commissioner has based the contention that it is discretionary for him to grant or to refuse to grant a certificate and that it is no body's right. The leading case on the interpretation of the word "may" is Julius v. Oxford (Bishop). Summing up the dictum of that case Maxwell at page 234 of the Eleventh Edition of his Book on Interpretation of Statutes observes as follows :- "Following the decision of the House of Lords in Julius v. Oxford (Bishop), it was said that from the nature of the English language the word 'may' can never mean 'must', that it is only potential, and when it is employed there is another question to be decided, viz., whether there is anything that makes it the duty of the person on whom the power is conferred to exercise that power. If not, the exercise is discretionary. But when the power is coupled with a duty of the person to whom it is given to exercise it, then it is imperative."
It is by now axiomatic that "where a power is deposited with public officers, to be used for the benefit of persons having rights in the matter" it becomes the obligation of the person so empowered to exercise that power or authority when an application for such exercise is duly made by a person who is interested in the matter and who successfully fulfils the requirements and pre- conditions for the exercise of such authority. The principle being that the incumbent of the public office has been invested with the power not for his benefit but for that of those in whose interest it is to be exercised. The District Magistrate was, therefore, wholly wrong when he expressed the opinion that it was a mere discretion and no body entitled to it could demand a domicile certificate as a matter of right.
4. Before parting with this point we may as well state that clause (c) of rule 23 cannot and does not confer any arbitrary authority on the persons mentioned in rule 23 because afterall this rule has been made for implementation and carrying into effect of the provisions of the Act and can therefore not travel beyond the authority of the Act or impose more restriction than the Act itself has imposed.
5. The District Magistrate was thus left with no discretion but to have issued the certificate and in refusing to do so he has acted without lawful authority. (1880) 5 App. Cas. 214 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.