Petitioner Syed Muhammad Ismail son of Syed Muhammad Saleem, has approached this Court by means of filing the instant petition, being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2022 ("the impugned judgment and decree"), passed by the Additional District Judge-IV / Model Civil Appellate Court. Quetta ("the lower Appellate Court"), whereby, the appeal filed by the Respondent No 1/defendant was allowed, judgment and decree dated 30.09.2021, passed by the Civil Judge-V. Quetta ("the trial Court") was set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 12 of 2021 before the trial Court, for declaration, de-blockage, renewal of CNIC, consequential relief and permanent injunction, stating therein that the parents of the petitioner/plaintiff obtained MNICS and CNICS in different years. The petitioner/plaintiff also obtained Old Form-B, in which the complete family of the petitioner/plaintiff is mentioned, and all the siblings of the petitioner/plaintiff also obtained their CNICS on the basis of said Old Form-B. It is case of the petitioner/plaintiff that when his CNIC got expired, he applied for renewal of his CNIC, but he was informed by the defendants that his CNIC has been blocked. It is further averred in the plaint by the petitioner that after blockage of his CNIC, he adopted the due procedure and time and again approached the concerned officials to release his CNIC, but the matter was lingered on, on one pretext or the other and finally the respondents/defendants refused to do the needful.
3. After filing of the suit, notices were issued to the respondents /defendants. The Respondents / Defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit of the petitioner/ plaintiff on legal as well as factual grounds, by filing written statement.
4. The trial Court out of the divergent pleading of the parties framed the following issues:- "1. Whether plaintiff has approached District/zonal Verification Committee?
2. Whether the CNIC of plaintiff has illegally been digitally impound by defendant?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for any relief claimed for?
4. Relief?"
5. To prove his claim, petitioner/ plaintiff produced PW-1 Abdul Baseer son of haji Abdul Samad, PW-2 Nazar Muhammad son of Wali Muhammad, PW-3 Shah Bibi w/o Syed Muhammad Saleem, PW-4 Bibi Zareena w/o Syed Muhammad Ismail. PW-6 Hamid Gulzar, representative of passport office Quetta, PW-7 Jalil Ahmed Shahwani, representative of NADRA, PW-8 Muhammad Siddique, representative of Civil Judge-IX, Quetta, PW-9 Atta Jan, representative of DC Office, Quetta. PW-10 Jalil Ahmed Shahwani, representative of NADRA and lastly. Petitioner/plaintiff recorded his statement on oath.
6. In rebuttal, representative of respondent/defendant (NADRA) namely Jalil Ahmed Shahwani, appeared and recorded his statement and submitted the RTC record of CNIC of petitioner/ plaintiff as Ex.D/1-B.
7. The trial Court on completion of evidence from both sides. Vide judgment and decree 30.09.2021 decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.
8. The respondents/defendants being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was allowed vide impugned judgment and decree, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed, hence this petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner proved his case before the trial Court on the strength of his witnesses either documentary or oral, but the lower appellate Court failed to consider such aspect of the matter and allowed the appeal of the respondents in arbitrary manner; that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court is neither speaking one nor having any consonance with law, but passed on conjunctures by exceeding its power and exercise of illegal jurisdiction, hence is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.
10. Learned Law Officer, NADRA, duly assisted by the learned AAG, while supporting the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and stated that the petitioner/ plaintiff has failed to make out his case; that the lower appellate Court has passed a sound reasoning judgment and decree warranting no interference by this Court, hence the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance Before dilating upon the rival contentions raised on behalf of both t parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 18 and 23 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ("the Ordinance of 2000"), which reads as under:-
18. Power to cancel, impound or confiscate cards.--(1) A cared is issued under this Ordinance shall be the property of the Federal Government and may by an order in writing under the seal of the Authority 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: Provided that no order shall be made unless such person has been given notice in writing calling upon him to show-cause why the order should not be made.
(2) An order under sub-section (1) cancelling. Impounding or confiscating a card may be made only if there Is reason to believe that--
(a) The card has been obtained by a person who is not eligible to hold such card, by posing himself as eligible:
(b) more than one cards have been obtained by the same Person on the same eligibility criteria:
(c) the particulars shown on the card have been obliterated or tempered with; or
(d) the card is forged
(3) Any person in respect of whose card an order under sub-section (1) has been made may, within thirty days of the order. appeal to the Federal Government against the order and the decision of the Federal Government in appeal shall be final: Provided that no order on such appeal shall be passed unless the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard.
"23. Power to call for proof of information-The Authority or any person authorized by it in this behalf may require a person who has given any information to furnish such documentary or other evidence of the truth of that information as it is within the power of that person to furnish."
12. Bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions of the Ordinance of 2000 clearly manifest that in case of any doubt, the respondent (NADRA) does have the authority to inquire and investigate about the Computerized National Identity Card ("CNIC") issued to a person, and if found and proved so, the authority can ask the holder of CNIC to surrender his card issued by NADRA under Section 17 of the Ordinance of 2000. Then, the authority has the power to cancel, impound or confiscate such card by making an order in writing under the seal of authority or by an officer authorized by it in this behalf under Section 18(1) of the Ordinance of 2000. The law further provides that no such like order can be made unless such person has given any notice in writing by calling upon him to show-cause as to why the order of cancellation / impounding / confiscation should not be made. Against such an order, the remedy available to an aggrieved person is that of an appeal to the Federal Government, provided under Section 18(3) of the Ordinance of 2000 within thirty days.
13. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the petitioner in his plaint has mainly alleged that the Respondent No. 1 issued him a Manual National Identity Card ('MNIC') and on the basis whereof also issued a CNIC, but on expiry of his CNIC when he approached the NADRA office for its renewal, he was told that his CNIC is blocked, which was later on digitally impounded. It is an admitted fact that the CNIC of petitioner was impounded on the recommendations of the Joint Verification Committee ('JVC') Quetta, however, the petitioner had never appeared before the District Level Committee ('TLC') and the Regional Level Committee ('TLC') at Quetta, where he resides, rather, he approached the Civil Court/trial Court for redressal of his grievances. In order to substantiate his plea, the petitioner has relied upon his previously issued MNIC and later on CNIC, the RLC form whereof was produced before the trial Court, which reveals that his card has been digitally impounded. Since the CNIC of the petitioner was digitally impounded, therefore, he had to approach the authorized committees for independent verification of his credentials rather than to approach the Civil Court, bypassing the proper mechanism.
14. The Federal Government vide Notification No. 8/37/2016- NADRA. Dated 19th April 2017, constituted a Review Committee and provided a mechanism for clearance of blocked CNICs, which reads as under: "NOTIFICATION No. 8/37/2016-NADRA. In exercise of power conferred under Section 47 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (VIII of 2000), the Federal Government constituted a Review Committee headed by Deputy Speaker. National Assembly vide Notification No. 8/37/2016-NADRA, dated 5th January 2017. On the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee, the Federal Government is pleased to approve following mechanism for clearance of Blocked CNICS:
1. Blocked CNIC will be cleared if applicant provides one or more of following documents: 1) Land record registered prior to 1978 (verified by Revenue Department).
2) Local/Domicile Certificates issued prior to 1978 and verified by issuing authority.
3) Pedigree (Shajra-e-Nasab) issued and verified by Revenue Department.
4) Government employment certificate (or of blood relative). Employed before 1990.
5) Verified educational certificates (issued prior to 1978).
6) Passport issued to applicant prior to 1978 7) Any other document issued by Government of Pakistan prior to 1978 and verified by issuing authority (including Arms License, Driving License or Manual NIC issued prior to 1978 duly verified by record)
2. NADRA will handle routine cases while complex (Blocked in Confirm Aliens/en Agency Report) cases will be dealt by District Level Committee.
3. The composition of District Level Committee: 1)Deputy Commissioner/PAPresident 2)District Police Officer Member 3)Assistant Director NADRAMember 4)Rep from ISI Member 5)Rep from IB Member
4. MNA of respective District will monitor the progress however responsibility of verification will be on the Deputy Commissioner/Political Agent.
5. If document being provided is from district where applicant is residing then NADRA will decide case in 6 x working days and otherwise NADRA Shall decide case in 30 x working days.
6. District Level Committee will decide verification status of blocked CNICS Within 30 days.
7. The above-mentioned process will not be applicable on persons falling Under purview of 16-A of Citizenship Act 1951.
Sdxxxxx (Mirza Khalid Mahmood)
Deputy Secretary (Admn)"
15. In pursuance of the referred Notification, the Government of Balochistan, to resolve the issues at district level, also constituted a committee, vide Notification No. US(Pol-1)2-9(NADRA)/2017/3305-
83. Dated 10th May 2017, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: "NOTIFICATION No. US(Pol-1)2-9(NADRA)/2017/3305-83. In pursuance of Government of Pakistan Ministry of Interior Islamabad's Notification No. 8/37/2016-NADRA, dated 19th April, 2017. The Government of Balochistan is pleased to constitute the following Committee at District Level to deal the complex CNIC (Blocked in Confirm Aliensi/on Agency Report) cases.
The Composition of District Level Committee is as under:- 1)Deputy Commissioner President 2)Senior Superintendent of PoliceMember 3)Assistant Director NADRA Member 4)Rep from ISI Member 5)Rep from IB Member
16. It is an admitted feature of the case that the appellate Court while modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court held that the petitioner may approach the concerned committees with documentary proof, but it appears that the petitioner has not approached the authorized committees including DLC and RLC, constituted by the Federal Government for the purpose to independently verify the credentials of claimants. The trial Court has declared the petitioner as bonafide Citizen of Pakistan on the strength of his MNIC and his digitally impounded CNIC, just on presumptions mainly on the ground that the authority has not complied with the provisions of Section 18 of the Ordinance of 2000 by issuing any notice to the petitioner and affording of opportunity of hearing to him. However, according to the, respondent, the petitioner was confined alien due to which his CNIC was digitally impounded therefore, in such state of affairs. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to have approached the DLC for redressal of his grievances through independent verification of his CNIC which was a proper and authorized forum to afford opportunity of hearing to him and to produce evidence in support of his claim.
17. At this juncture, learned Law Officer, NADRA frankly conceded that if the petitioner would desire to appear before the committee with documentary proof, his blocked/impounded CNIC will be restored.
I would place reliance on the case titled Anwar Shah and others v. Deputy Commissioner Chaman & another, passed by this Court in Constitution Petition No. 1189 of 2020, vide order dated 13.09.2021.
18. No other illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, which is upheld, resultantly, the instant petition having no merit is here by dismissed.
Needless to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the proper forums. Provided to him under the law for redressal of his grievances.