' FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, J.-The petitioner had applied to District Magistrate Thatta, for issuance of Permanent Residence Certificate (P. R. C.) for the purpose of getting admission in a Medical College of Sind. The District Magistrate, after holding necessary inquiry, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Thatta. Hence his application was rejected by the District Magistrate by his order dated 7th March, 1981. Against this order the Petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner under rule 8 of Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the P. R. C. Rules). The learned Commissioner considered all the documents produced before the District Magistrate in support of the P. R. C. Application. He also referred to his earlier order dated 21st May, 1980 in respect of sister of the Petitioner Miss Seema Jafri, whereby her application for P. R. C. For Thatta was rejected. No C. P. Was filed against that order. The Commissioner ultimately passed order on 28th May, 1981 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant P.R.C. To the petitioner.
Consequently the petitioner could not get admission in Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro for which he was otherwise entitled had he been successful in obtaining the P. R. C.
2. The petitioner has challenged the above orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner by this Constitutional petition and has prayed for the following reliefs :-
(i) To declare and hold that the orders passed by both the respondents are illegal, invalid, improper and of no effect whatsoever and quash or set aside the same, directing the Respondents to allow the Application and the Appeal of the petitioner.
(ii) To issue necessary direction or write to the respondents directing them to grant and issue the requisite Permanent Residence Certificate to the petitioner, as had been applied for by him, "and prohibiting Respondent No, 3 from disqualifying the petitioner to seek admission merely for want of Permanent Residence Certificate."
3. The case of the petitioner is that his father arrived from. Agra in 1950 and joined medical service of Sind. On 27th April, 1962 ' Petitioner's father namely, S. M. Azhar Ali Jafri was appointed Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Hyderabad. On 20th June, 1962 the petitioner was born at Hyderabad. On 27th September, 1962 the petitioner's father was transferred to Khairpur as Civil Surgeon and in 1963 he was transferred to Thatta, where he stayed for a considerable period and also adopted Thatta as his place of permanent residence.
4. On 18th May, 1968 the Petitioner joined a Primary School of Thatta and studied there upto August, 1971. Petitioner's grandmother died at Thatta and was buried there. On 29th June, 1971 Petitioner's father weed to purchase a plot of land from one Ejaz Hussain Shah by means of a sale-agreement which is Annexure 'F' to the Petition. On 24th February, 1975 Petitioner's father obtained domicile certificate of Thatta (Annexure 0'). In this certificate the Petitioner has also been mentioned as one of the children living with him.
5. One sister of the Petitioner namely, Miss Razia Jafri was also candidate for Medical College in the year 1975 and had obtained P. R. C. From District Magistrate Thatta on 25th February, 1975 which is Annexure `H' to the Petition. One elder brother of the Petitioner namely, Syed Mazhar Ali was also a candidate for Medical College for which purpose he had obtained P. R. C. From District Magistrate, Thatta which is Annexure 'J' to the petition and is dated 24th December, 1975. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed that although P. R. C. Issued in respect of his elder sister Seema Jafri was cancelled, but his other sister and brother namely, Zakia Jafri and Mazhar Ali Jafri had obtained admission in Medical Colleges on valid P. R. C. S. Issued by the District Magistrate, Thatta and had almost completed their medical education. It is, therefore, claimed that the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, who are respondents Nos. 2 and I respectively, had wrongly refused to grant P.R.C. To the petitioner.
6. The first contention of Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqi learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the father of the petitioner had adopted Thatta as his permanent residence where he had also purchased a plot of land. However, after his retirement, he had temporarily shifted to Hyderabad where he had better chances of running a private clinic. The learned District Magistrate had mentioned in his impugned order (Annexure, "M") dated 7th March, 1981 that :- "But after the retirement, applicant's father is putting up at Hyderabad in House No, C-59 Block No, C Unit 6 Latifabad, Hyderabad, as admitted by Miss Seema Jaffery, the sister of applicant, at the time of considering her case for grant of P. R. C. From this District which was rejected by my predecessor on 30th March, 1980 and the appeal preferred against the said order was also rejected by the Commissioner Hyderabad vide his order dated 21st May, 1980 mainly on the ground that the applicant has no permanent abode at Thatta nor he has any intention to settle at Thatta."
7. It was further observed by the District Magistrate that the petitioner's father had not purchased any plot at Thatta as asserted in the petition. He had only agreed to purchase a plot from Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah which plot is still in possession of the same owner. The sale-agreement in respect of this plot is dated 29th June, 1971. Although more than 10 years have passed, yet neither this transaction has been completed nor even possession of the plot been taken by the Petitioner's father. This fact would be evident from the Identity Card of the Petitioner which is Annexure 'C' in which his present address has been given as Unit-6, Latifabad, Hyderabad while permanent address has been given as " The house number is the same which is subject-matter of the sale- agreement (Annexure 'F'). But the address in the identity Card which was issued on 20th September, 1980, shows that Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah is still residing in the same plot/ house which was agreed to be sold to the petitioner's father 10 years earlier. The District Magistrate, therefore, came to the conclusion that although originally the petitioner's father had settled in Thatta, but after his retirement he shifted to Hyderabad and had severed all his links from Thatta. The learned Commissioner also agreed with these findings of fact of District Magistrate and by an elaborate order dated 28th May, 1981 came to the conclusion that on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, the petitioner was not entitled to P. R. C. Of Thatta. The learned Commissioner also relied on his earlier order dated 21st May, 1980, whereby P.R.C. Application of Miss Seema Jaffri, one of the elder sisters of the petitioner, was rejected.
8. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate and the learned Commissioner should have treated the case of the petitioner at par with those of his elder sister Miss Zakia Jafri and his elder brother Syed Mazhar Ali Jafri and not with that of Miss Seema Jafri. There is no substance in this argument. P. R. Cs. In favour of the elder sister Miss Zakia Jafri and elder brother Mazhar Ali Jafri of the petitioner were issued in the year 1975. So far as the case of Miss Seema Jafri is concerned, she had applied later in the year 1980, when it was found that she and the petitioner's father had severed their links with Thatta and had shifted to Hyderabad. It was for this reason that A Miss Seema Jafri was not granted P. R. C. The order of the learned Commissioner dismissing the appeal of Miss Seema Jafri has not been challenged in any writ petition. Hence it cannot be said that the Commissioner was in any way wrong in treating the case of the petitioner at par with that of Miss Seema Jafri.
9. So far as the grant of P. R. C. Is concerned, it is governed by P. R. C. Rules, 1971. Rule 4 requires the District Magistrate to hold such inquiry as he deems necessary and pass orders in respect of grant or refusing to grant P.R.C. According to his satisfaction. If he has committed any error of fact or law, then his order is liable to be corrected by the Commissioner under rule 8. In the present case both the District Magistrate and the Commissioner had given concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner and his father have left Thatta for good and settled at Hyderabad. This finding is based on the inquiry conducted by the District Magistrate. Hence the fact that one sister and one brother of the petitioner were at one time in the year 1975 granted P. R. Cs. For Thatta, would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that their younger brothers and sisters were, by the mere fact of the earlier P.
R. C. Entitled to the grant of P.R.C. For the same District. The petitioner had applied for P. R. C. In the year 1981. The question before the District Magistrate, therefore, was whether at the relevant time i,e, at the time of making the application, the petitioner was a permanent resident of the District of which he claims to be a permanent resident. This is a point of fact which both, the District Magistrate and the Commissioner had found against the petitioner.
10. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Miss Mehrun Nissa Baloch v. Appellate Committee, Karachi and 2 others (1). This was also a case of refusal of P. R. C. By the District
(1) PLD 1978 Kar. 214 ' Magistrate and the Commissioner. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J., with whom Abdul Qadir Halepota, J.
(as he then was), made following observations :- "Now, it is clear to me that if the intention was to base the grant of permanent residence certificate on the domicile certificate of the applicants' parents it was not necessary to provide for any enquiry by the District Magistrate under rule 4 to ascertain the place of permanent residence of the appellant. In fact, the said rules need not have come into existence for the domicile certificate of the parents would have been sufficient for the purpose of seeking admission to medical college in one of the district-wise "reserved seats". The domicile certificate unlike the permanent residence certificate is not open to challenge by an aggrieved person. For the grant of a domicile certificate under section 17 of the Citizenship Act all that is necessary is that the applicant was ordinarily residing in Pakistan for specified period and has intention to make Pakistan his place of abode and, therefore, the fact that in the prescribed form there is column of place of domicile appears to be of not much importance. At best it is a piece of evidence in favour of an applicant for permanent residence certificate. It is not conclusive against either the District Magistrate or the Appellate Committee for under the said Rules, they are obliged to ascertain for themselves whether a person is a permanent resident of a particular district and if the Appellate Committee has in the present case not chosen to rely on this piece of evidence it cannot be said that they have acted illegally."
' The above finding was also approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Miss Mehrun Nissa Baloch v. The Appellate Committee (1). In the case of Taj Muhammad v. Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and 7 others (2) a Division Bench of this Court held as under :- "6. In the light of the cited observations of their Lordships, we entirely agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Commissioner could not decide the case only on being satisfied that the conditions laid down in rule 6 of the rules were fulfilled by the respondents but he had to examine the question whether on the evidence produced in support of their respective claims, the respondents had established the fact that they were 'permanent residents of District Thatta'. There is no doubt that the question as to what constitutes permanent residence in a District does present some difficulty in view of, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the absence of any the guidelines in that behalf in the rules except what can be spelled out impliedly from the information which has to be submitted in an application for a P. R. C."
' The Supreme Court case referred to above is of Miss Mehrun Nissa Baloch already quoted hereinabove.
For the above reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner. There is nothing on the record to indicate that their findings are perverse or are based on misreading of evidence or are contrary to the P. R. C.
Rules. Consequently the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(1) 1978 SCM R 439C (2) 1979 CLC 237