1. ' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-This is a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974, whereby the petitioner challenges the domicile certificate issued in favour of non-petitioner No, 5, Miss Jamila Ashai.
2. ' The facts leading to the present writ petition are that a Nomination Board has been set up by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government for making nominations against the reserved quota of seats in various professional and other institutions in Pakistan on basis of merits and according to the quota of seats reserved for each District.
3. ' The petitioner and non-petitioner No, 5, Miss Jamila Ashai were candidates for nomination against the reserved quota of seats in medical colleges in Pakistan. As has been already stated that the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government has also fixed quota for each District in Azad Kashmir, which are four in number. The case of the petitioner is that non-petitioner No, 5, Miss Jamila Ashai was not a domicile of Muzaffarabad District and as such, domicile certificate issued in her favour showing her domicile of Muzaffarabad District and thus, enabling her to get seat to medical college from the reserved quota of Muzaffarabad District, is without lawful authority. The petitioner also challenges the orders passed by the appellate authorities on the appeals filed by her. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid orders were passed in disregard of statutory provisions and wrong assumption of facts. It may be observed here that previously domicile certificates were issued by the District Magistrates in pursuance of their administrative powers and there was no law on the statute book of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, governing the matter. But the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Council promulgated an Act known as the Azad Jammu & Kashmir State-Subject Act of 1980 and also framed Rules in pursuance of the said Act which are known as the Azad Jammu & Kashmir State-Subject Rules of 1980. After the promugation of the aforesaid Act and framing of the Rules, the domicile certificates are issued under the provisions of the said Act and Rules. In the instant case, the domicile certificate in favour of the petitioner and non-petitioner No, 5, Miss Jamila Ashai, have been issued under section 5 of the aforesaid Act read with rule 7 of the said Rules. Therefore, the validity of the certificate issued in favour of non-petitioner No, 5, would be adjudged in view of the provisions contained in the said Act and Rules. Section 5 of the Act stipulates that upon an application made to the authority specified by the Council, on a prescribed form, the domicile certificate is to be issued to a person who proves that he has been continuously residing in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir State for a period not less than 5 years and intends to live permanently in Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Under rule 7, any District Magistrate in Azad Jammu & Kashmir is empowered to issue a certificate of domicile if the application is made on prescribed form and the District Magistrate is satisfied that the applicant has been residing in Azad Kashmir for a period not less than 5 years and intends to live in Azad Jammu & Kashmir permanently. For appreciating the pros and cons of the matter in dispute, it is expedient to reproduce section 5 of the Act and rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules :- ' Section 5. Certificate of domicile.---The Council or any other authority specified by the Council may, upon an application 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 the facts stated in the application are correct and that the applicant has been continuously residing in Azad Jammu & Kashmir for a period of not less than five years and intends to live permanently in Azad Jammu & Kashmir."
4. ' Rule 7. Certificate of domicile.-(1) Any District Magistrate in Azad Jammu & Kashmir may issue a certificate of domicile in the manner prescribed below :-
(a) An application for a certificate of domicile shall be made in Form P (Appendix Ill) in duplicate. It shall be accompanied by an affidavit affirming the truth of the statement made in it.
(b) The District Magistrate may demand such evidence as he may consider necessary for satisfying himself that the facts stated in the application are correct and that the applicant has been continuously residing in Azad Jammu & Kashmir for a period of not less than 5 years and intends to live permanently in Azad Jammu & Kashmir."
5. It is obvious from the provisions contained in section 5 read with rule 7 that domicile certificate visualized in the said Act and the Rules, is a domicile certificate of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and not of a particular District or A place. A perusal of prescribed Form P contained in Appendix III, on which an application for obtaining a domicile certificate is to be made, also shows that an applicant has to apply for obtaining domicile certificate of Azad Jammu & Kaskmir and not of a particular place in Azad Kashmir. The provisions reproduced above, also indicate that for obtaining a domicile certificate of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, an applicant has not to prove that he has been residing for five years in a particular place i,e, District etc., rather he has to prove that he has been residing in Azad Jammu & Kashmir at least for a period of 5 years. The fact as to whether he resided during the said period in one district or more than one district is not material. The next condition for issuance of domicile certificate is that the applicant has to prove that he intends to permanently settle in Azad Jammu & Kashmir in future. It becomes crystal clear from the aforesaid discussion that the , District Magistrate has to issue a certificate that an applicant is a domicile of r Azad Jammu & Kashmir and not that he is domicile of a particular district or place in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, because there is no such provision either in the Act or Rules framed thereunder, visualizing such a certificate. However, the difficulty has arisen in view of Form P-1 which forms Appendix IV to the Rules.
6. ' A perusal of Form P-1 shows that in the main body of the form it is not mentioned that certificate is issued to the effect that applicant is domicile of the Azad Jammu & Kashinir State. However, the portion which pertains to the particulars of the 'applicant, the place of domicile of the applicant showing district etc. Has to be mentioned. It means that certificate of domicile should be interpreted to be a certificate to the effect that a person holding the same, is the domicile of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and he is permanently settled at the place given in the certificate ; the particulars with reference to the 'place of domicile' would indicate the place where the person holding the certificate is permanently settled at the time of issuance of the certificate. The place of domicile would indicate the place where the person is settled or in other words the place which such person has chosen as his permanent abode and not the place where he is residing temporarily on account of his service, business engagements or for any other similar reason.
7. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that schedules to an Act are not a good guide for interpreting the provisions of a statute and they are usually misguiding. He has argued that place of domicile which has to be mentioned in Form P-1 on which the domicile certificate is issued, cannot be indicative of the fact that the certificate holder is domicile of the district mentioned therein. He has maintained that word 'domicile' in expression "domicile Kee Jaga" should be given ordinary dictionary meanings and should be interpreted merely as indicative of address of the certificate holder at the relevant time. To substantiate his contention the learned counsel has relied on cases reported as AIR 1926 Cal. 638, AIR 1932 Mad. 523 and AIR 1941 Rang.
135. In AIR 1926 Cal. 638, it was held that schedule to enactments are part of enactments but they should not be taken into consideration where the language of an enactment is clear. In AIR 1932 Mad. 523, it was held that Appendix (G), Form II should be construed with reference to Order XLIV, rule 1 and form appended to C. P. C. Should not be interpreted to extend the meanings of section and Rules. In AIR 1941 Rang. 135, it was held that Schedule Forms are dangerous guide to the meanings of a statute: The principles enunciated in the aforesaid authorities are that : (1) Schedules or appendixes are the part of an enactment ;
(ii) that where the relevant provisions of an enactment are clear, the Form may not be taken into consideration ; and
(iii) that the forms or schedules are not good guides for interpreting the provisions of an enactment.
8. ' Applying the aforesaid principle in the present case, although Form P-I is a part of the Act and Rules, yet it does not enlarge the scope of either section 5 of the Act or Rule 7. Therefore, a certificate issued under the aforesaid provisions, would be certificate to the effect that its holder isle domicile of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. However, the place mentioned against the words "domicile Kee Jaga" would indicate the place where the certificate holder is permanently settled in Azad Jammu & Kashmir at the time of the issuance of the domicile certificate and it cannot be said that it would merely indicate the place of residence of the person holding the certificate, even if it is his temporary place of residence and not his permanent abode or home. The place of domicile shown in domicile certificate is proof of the fact that person holding the certificate is permanently settled at the place shown in the domicile certificate and it can be validly relied by the nomination Board or any other authority while deciding the question as to in which of the districts, the certificate holder is permanently settled. The word 'domicile' is fiction of private and International Law and residence of a person is not necessarily the same as his domicile. The reference may be made to the meanings attributed to the word 'domicile' in a book named "Law Terms and Phrases, Judicially Interpreted", compiled by Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Mokal (1978 Edition). On page 330, it has been observed as follows :- "Residence and domicile are not necessarily the same. The distinction between the import of the terms residence and domicile is obvious. The first is used to indicate the, place of dwelling whether permanent or temporary, the second to denote a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning."
9. ' Again, in AIR 1933 Rang. 193, it has been held that word "domicile" would imply the place where a person has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and his family and not a place where he resides for merely special or temporary purposes but with an intention of making it his permanent home until and unless some event shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home.
10. ' In AIR 1951 Bhop. 1, the word "domicile" has been interpreted to be a place where a man has his home or his regular place of abode or generally speaking the place where he had permanent home or a place where he has voluntarily fixed his abode, not for a special or temporary purpose but with an intention of making it his permanent home. In AIR 1955 SC 334, the word "domicile" has been held to mean permanent home of a person, It is evident from the aforesaid interpretation of the word "domicile" that it is an idea of law and when used in a statute, it cannot be given ordinary dictionary meanings. Therefore, we are of the view that the word "domicile" in expression "domicile Kee Jaga" in Form P-1; would indicate the permanent home or abode of the certificate-holder and not his temporary place of D residence. Had the Law-giver intended the meanings of the word "domicile" attributed to it by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would have merely used the expression "place of residence of the applicant" and would not have used the word "domicile" in the aforesaid expression. It may be further observed that it cannot be said that while issuing a domicile certificate of Azad Jammu & Kashmir State, the District Magistrate is debarred from mentioning the permanent place of abode of a person in view of language of section 5 of the Act or rule 7.
11. Because, while determining as to whether a person is entitled to a domicile certificate under the relevant provisions of law, the fact with regard to his permanent abode, is an important factor which has to be gone into by the District Magistrate or any other authority empowered to issue a domicile certificate. Therefore, the argument that the place of domicile given in the certificate is not a proof of the fact that the certificate-holder is permanently settled or has permanently chosen the said place as his permanent home, is not tenable and is hereby repelled.
12. ' Coming to the merits of the case, it is on the record that late G. D. Ashai, the father of the non- petitioner No, 5, Miss Jamila Ashai, migrated from Indian Held Kashmir and purchased a site for constructing house in Muzaffarabad Town and subsequently, he constructed a house for him and settled there. Later, on, when he was transferred to Mirpur and Kotli Districts in connection with his service, he rented out his house at Muzaffarabad and lived with his family at Mirpur. He did not construct any house at Mirpur though his son Wijahat Hussain obtained a plot in New Mirpur Town.
13. The statement of non-petitioner No, 5, Miss Jamila Ashai is on the record wherein she has stated that her father had constructed a house at Muzaffarabad and had settled at Muzaffarabad. She has further stated that she passed her Matriculation and F. Sc. Examinations from educational Institutions at Mirpur because, she was temporarily residing with her mother there. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that Dawood, the brother of non-petitioner No, 5 and son of late G. D. Ashai, got admission to the King Edwards Medical College, Lahore as a domicile of Punjab Province and not as a domicile of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. However, Annexures `F' and T/1' to the writ petition filed by the petitioner, show that Dawood, the brother of the non-petitioner No, 5, was nominated by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government against the reserved quota of seats for Azad Jammu & Kashmir nationals. Nothing has been placed on the record, showing that the father of non-petitioner No, 5, Miss Jamila Ashai, had obtained any domicile certificate of his son, Dawood, asserting that he or his son was domicile of Pakistan. Therefore, the argument that the father of non-petitioner No, 5 had contained any such domicile certificate for getting the admission of his son to the King Edwards Medical College Lahore, is not substantiated by record and is devoid of any force. A question of fact or even a mixed question of law and fact decided by a competent authority in view of the evidence, cannot be interfered, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, until and unless it is shown that the findings are clearly violative of statutory provisions or the same were given without any evidence or the evidence was so misread that it affected the decision on merits. No such eventuality exists in the present case and as such, we have no hesitation in holding that domicile certificate issued in favour of non-petitioner No, 5, Miss Jamila Ashai, and the orders passed by the appellate authorities, do not call for any interference, in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
14. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that finding no force in this writ petition, it is hereby dismissed with costs.