1. ' Through this Constitutional petition, the validity of the order of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, dated 20-12-1983, directing the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad to issue certificate of domicile in favour of Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent No, 2, has been challenged and a further prayer has also been made to strike off her name from the merit list of the girls candidates for nomination to the admission in the M. B. B. S. Course for the year, 1983-84 against the seats reserved for District Muzaffarabad in the Medical Colleges of Pakistan, circulated by the Nomination Board, respondent No, 1 and to direct the said Board not to nominate the respondent No, 2 against any of the said seats.
2. ' The brief facts forming background to the filing of the present writ petition are that certain number of seats are reserved for the State subjects of Jammu and Kashmir in the various professional, technical and other educational Institutions of higher studies in Pakistan against which allocation is made by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through its Nomination Board, respondent No, 1 from amongst the candidates on the basis of merits in accordance with the quota fixed by it for the permanent residents of each District of Azad Kashmir and the refugees from Jammu and Kashmir State settled in Pakistan.
3. ' A person who is a candidate for the nomination to one of the seats reserved in any of the Educational Institutions of Pakistan is required to submit an application for the purpose to the Nomination Board, respondent No, 1 accompanied by among others, a certificate of domicile issued by the District Magistrate under the prevalent law and only that candidate is eligible for nomination in order of merits, against the seats falling to the share of any particular District in accordance with the District wise quota system in whose favour certificate of domicile has been granted by the District Magistrate of such District.
4. ' Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent No, 2, being a candidate for nomination against one of the seats reserved for the girls of Muzaffarabad District in the Medical Colleges of Pakistan for the M.B.,B.S..
5. Course for the year, 1983-84, made an application for that grant of domicile certificate to the District Magistrate M uzaffarabad but was unsuccessful in obtaining the mile as her application for the purpose was rejected by the said Magistrate vide his order dated 8-111983 (copy Annexure 'G') on the ground of her not being the permanent resident of District Muzaffarabad. The said respondent then filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council (hereinafter referred to as Council) which accepting the same set it aside and directed the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad to issue domicile certificate in her favour vide its order dated 20-12-1983, a copy of which is Annexure 'C' with the writ petition In consequence of the above order of the Council, respondent No, 2 was placed at S. No, 4 while the petitioner was shown at S. No, 6 in a merit list of the girls candidates for the nomination against the seats reserved for the girls of Muzaffarabad District in the Medical Colleges of Pakistan for M.B , B.S. Course for the year, 1983-84 which was prepared and circulated by the Nomination Board, respondent No, 1.
6. ' Feeling aggrieved by the above order of the Council, directing the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad to issue certificate of domicile in favour of respondent No, 2 which, as against the petitioner, secured her better and preferential place in the aforesaid merits list, the petitioner has approached this Court for the redress of her grievance arising out of the said order by way of this writ petition.
7. ' The grievance of the petitioner is that the order impugned in this writ petition has been made by the Council without lawful authority as ,well as in contravention of the relevant law and rules governing the grant of domicile certificate and that the respondent No, 2 is not entitled to obtain domicile certificate from District Muzaffarabad and as such her nomination against one of the seats reserved for the girls candidates from Muzaffarabad District in the Medical Colleges of Pakistan for admission to M B., B.S. Course on the basis of the impugned order will have the effect of depriving the petitioner of her legal right of nomination to one of the said reserved seats.
8. ' The petition has been contested by the respondent No, 2 as well as the Council, respondent No, 3 by filing separate written statements wherein it is alleged that the Council was quite competent to make the impugned order and that the respondent No, 2 was eligible to the grant of domicile certificate by the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad under law.
9. ' I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant law and rules applicable in the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has called in question the validity of the impugned order of the Council directing the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad to issue certificate of domicile in favour of respondent No, 2 on the following grounds:-
(1) That the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subject Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as State Subject Act) and the Rules made thereunder and known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subject Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) are ultra vires of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as Constitution) and as such the impugned order of the Council is unlawful having been made without lawful authority. To elaborate his above argument it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that item-I of Third Schedule of the Constitution in which the matters with respect to which the Council shall have the powers to make law, have been enumerated powers the Council to make laws concerning nationality and citizenship only in respect of persons not domiciled in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and as such the Council had no legislative power to make provisions in the State Subject Act enabling it or any other authority to issue State Subject or Domicile Certificate to the person residing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Thus on the basis of the above contention, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order made by the Council and impugned in this writ petition is illegal as the same has been made in the purported exercise of the powers vested in it under the law which is ab initio void being ultra vires of the Constitution;
(2) That, in the alternative, the impugned order is unlawful having been made in contravention of the provisions contained in rule 7 of the State Subject Rules inasmuch as the respondent No, 2 had not been residing continuously for a period of not less than five years in District Muzaffarabad before - making application for the grant of domicile certificate to the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad but is a permanent resident of District Mirpur where her father resides permarIntly and possesses ancestral property and that she only lived in Muiaffarabad temporarily for a short period before the year, 1981 with her father who was posted there in the capacity of civil servant.
10. ' In reply to the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondents have argued that the impugned order of the Council does not suffer from any infirmity and is perfectly valid and lawful both under the relevant provisions of the Constitution as well as that of the State Subject Act and the Rules made thereunder. In this connection, in the first place, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the provisions of item-I of Third Schedule of the Constitution confer powers upon a Council to make laws pertaining to citizenship in respect of persons residing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and there is nothing in them from which it may be construed that the Council is debarred from making laws concerning the above matter in respect of the persons domiciled in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and its powers in this behalf are restricted to undertake legislation only in respect of the persons not domiciled in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir. In the second place, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the respondent No, 2 is a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District and not that of Mirpur as is alleged by the petitioner. To support his above plea it has been contended by him that the father of the said respondent is Mangla Dam affectee on account of his ancestral property having been required for the construction of Mangla Dam who after having been so effected had chosen to make Muzaffarabad his permanent abode and for that purpose had constructed a house where the said respondent and her other brothers and sisters had been living with him and receiving their education in the educational Institutions of Muzaffarabad till his transfer as Deputy Commissioner to District Kotli in the end of the year, 1981 where they are temporarily living with him presently.
11. ' It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that even otherwise under the provisions of the State Subject Act and Rules made thereunder, a person who has been residing in any part of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for a period of not less than five years with the intention to reside there permanently, is entitled to obtain domicile certificate from any District Magistrate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on his making application to him for the said purpose. Thus it is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that the respondent No, 2 was legally entitled to obtain certificate from the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad who wrongly and unjustifiably refused to grant the same to her on the ground of her not being the permanent resident of District Muzaffarabad and therefore, the Council did not commit any mistake by passing the impugned order which is perfectly lawful.
12. ' Now I proceed to take up the bode contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for discussion and decision thereon seriatim in the light of the arguments addressed at the bar and the provisions of the relevant law and rules. As regards the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Subject Act and the Rules under which the Council has made the impugned order are violative of the Constitution. I find no substance in it. The above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner proceeds on the ground that in item No, 1 of the Third Schedule of the Constitution, the Council has been given the power to enact law regarding citizenship only in respect of the persons who are not domiciled in Azad Kashmir and as such the provisions of the said Act conferring power on the Council to grant domicile certificate to the persons domiciled in Azad Jammu and Kashmir have been enacted without lawful authority and consequently the impugned order granting domicile certificate to the respondent No, 2 lacks legal sanction behind it. To appreciate the above argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it appears pertinent to reproduce the item 1 of the said Schedule. It reads:-
(1) Subject to the responsibilities of the Government of Pakistan under the UNCIP Resolutions, nationality, citizenship and naturalization, migration from or into Azad Jana.Nu and Kashmir, admission into, and emigration and expulsion from, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, including in relation thereto the regulation of the movements in Azad Jammu and Kashmir of persons not domiciled in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
13. The language of the provisions of the item of Schedule reproduced above is so clear and unambiguous that when the same is read along with the provision contained in section 31 of the Constitution, it does not bear out the interpretation placed on it by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Under section 31(1) of the Constitution, both the Council and the Assembly shall have the power to make laws for the territories of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and for all the State subjects wherever they may be and under subsection (2) of the said section, the Council shall have the exclusive power to make law in respect of any matter in the Council Legislative List, set out in the Third Schedule of the Constitution. Thus the plain reading of the provisions contained in the above section and item 1 of Third Schedule of the Constitution will show that the Council is fully empowered to make laws concerning citizenship for the territories of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the persons residing therein and there is nothing in the provisions of the aforesaid Schedule which may be construed, by any stretch of imagination, to be placing any embargo or restriction on the powers of the Council to enact a law pertaining to the citizenship or domicile in respect of the person residing or having a domicile in Azad Kashmir. Any such construction being imported into the provisions of item 1 of Third Schedule of the Constitution is to be at once dismissed as untenable and unreasonable.
14. ' Generally speaking, the Constitution of a Country gives power to its legislative body to make legislation in respect of the territories, citizens, nationals and residents of that Country. But if the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to certain provisions of Azad Kashmir Constitution is accepted and allowed to prevail, then quite strange and anamolous position would emerge therefrom as in that case it would mean that Azad Kashmir Constitution has made provisions in respect of Certain matters including citizenship which are not only unique but also run counter to the provisions made in the Constitution of other countries of the world on the similar matters and which empower one of the legislative body of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to make law concerning citizenship in respect of persons who are domiciled in foreign countries but refrain from giving .Such power to it in respect of person domiciled in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. To incorporate such an anamolous and purposeless provisions in the Council Legislative List could never have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution who were supposed to be well versed in the principles underlying the Constitution and the art of its framing, nor such an intention can be gathered from the provisions contained in item 1 of Third Schedule of the Constitution which are couched in such an explicit and unambiguous language that they admit of no such construction or interpretation as placed on them by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and referred to above.
15. It appears that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had been misled by the words 'of persons not domiciled in Azad Jammu and Kashmir' occurring in the last sentence of the provisions contained in item I of Third Schedule of the Constitution. In my view, under no rule of interpretation of statute or of grammar, the above words can be read after or affixed with the words 'nationality, citizenship and nationalization' occurring in the aforesaid item of Third Schedule of the Constitution and are to be read only after the words 'including in relation thereto the regulation of the movements in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, in the aforementioned item of Third Schedul of the Constitution. Thus when the above words are read in the manne as indicated above, the said item of the Third Schedule would mean that the Council can also make laws concerning the regulation of movement-in the Azad lammu and Kashmir of persons not domiciled in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Such a provision appears to be quite reasonable, apt and purposeful because it authorises the Council to make laws so as to regulate the movements of the citizens or residents of foreign countries who may enter into the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir temporarily. The making of such provision in the said Schedule of the Constitution does not in any way warrant the interpretation that the powers of the council to make laws concerning citizenship are also subject to the restriction that the same are to be exercised to enact law pertaining only to the persons not domiciled in Azad Kashmir.
16. ' For the reasons stated above, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled and it is held that the State Subject Act is perfectly valid piece of legislation which the Council had the power to make.
17. ' The next objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the impugned order of the council being illegal because of its having been made in violation of rule 7 of the R -les has also no substance in it. The above objection has proceeded on the ground that under the provisions of the aforesaid Rule, the District Magistrate of Azad Kashmir is authorized to issue domicile certificate only to a person who has been continuously residing in his District at least for a period of five years before making application for the said purpose and also intends to live in it permanently and since the father of the respondent No, 2 is a permanent resident of Mirpur District and neither he nor his daughter, the said respondent was residing in Muzaffarabad District prior to making application for the grant of domicile certificate to the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad but was residing in Kotli since the year, 1981, she said respondent was not entitled to obtain certificate of domicile from the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad.
18. ' Even if it is conceded for the sake of arguments that respondent No, 2 is permanent resident of District Mirpur and was also not residing in Muzaffarabad District at the relevant time still the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate Muzaffarbad or for that matter the Council was under legal disability to issue certificate to her on account of the said reason does not appear to be valid and tenable when the same is considered in the light of the relevant provisions of law and the Rules governing the grant of domicile certificate by the council or the District Magistrate embodied in section 5 of the State Subject Act and rule 7,of the Rules made thereunder which are reproduced below for the sake of reference :- "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 and Kashmir for a period of not less than five years and intends to live permanently in Azad Jammu and Kashmir."
19. ' Rule 7. Certificate of domicile. -(1) Any District Magistrate in Azad Jammu and 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-I11) in duplicate.
20. 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 and Kashmir for a period of not less than five years and intends to live permanently in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
(2) The District Magistrate shall either reject the application or grant a certificate of domicile in Form 'X' (Appendix-1V).
(3) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-rule (2) may file an appeal with the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir within thirty days and the Government may pass such order as it deems fit."
21. From the bare reading of the provisions of law and rule reproduced above it becomes quite clear that the Council or any District Magistrate of Azad Kashmir is fully competent issue domicile certificate to any person who makes application for the purpose to it or him, as the case may be, after being satisfied that such person has been residing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir for a period of not less than five years before the date of making the aforesaid application with the intention to live there permanently. There is nothing in the above provisions of law and rule which may be construed to be debarring any District Magistrate of the Azad Kashmir to grant domicile certificate to an applicant for the grant of certificate of domicile who, although fulfils the above two conditions is not either permanent resident of his district or has not been residing there for the period of not less than five years before making application for the issuance of domicile certificate.
22. When the case of the respondent No, 2 for the grant of domicile certificate by the District Magistrate Muzaffarbad is examined in the light of the above legal position, the inescapable conclusion to which one comes is that the said respondent was legally entitled to obtain domicile certificate from the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad even if she was permanent resident of Mirpur District and had not been residing in Muzaffarabad District since many years at the time of her making application for the grant of domicile certificate to the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad. It was not at all necessary for the said respondent to be permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District or residing there for the last five years for obtaining domicile certificate from the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad and all that was necessary to be proved 1 by her for securing domicile certificate from the said District Magistrate was that she had been residing in the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir D for a period of not less than five years before the date of tier making application for the grant of domicile certificate and that she had the intention to live in Azad Jammu and Kashmir permanently. The above two pre-conditions for obtaining domicile certificate were fully satisfied in the case of the said respondent because it is not even the case of petitioner that she (respondent No, 2) is not permanent resident of Azad Kashmir or that she does not intend to live there permanently and she has only taken exception to the impugned order on the ground of the said respondent being permanent resident of District Mirpur where her father is residing permanently and owns ancestral property is not eligible to obtain domicile certificate from District Magistrate Muzaffarabad.
23. ' In this view of the matter, the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad had erred in rejecting the application of the respondent under consideration for the grant of domicile certificate to her vide his order dated 8-11-1963 on the ground of her not having permanent residence in District Muzaffarabad.
24. It appears necessary here to make it clear that the domicile certificate as is envisaged by the State Subject Act and the Rules made thereunder is a domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of any its particular District. The above legal position is fully established not only from section 5 of the said Act and rule 7 of the Rules made thereunder and reproduced in the early part of this judgment but is also borne out from the contents of the forms prescribed for making the application and for issuing the certificate of domicile. Rule 7(a) of Rules, lays down that the application for grant of domicile certificate shall be made on Form 'P' which is Appendix III while subsection (2) of the said Rule enjoins that the domicile certificate shall be granted on Form (i)
25. (Appendix IV). For the sake of reference the above prescribed forms are reproduced below which read :- III - (Appendix) {{URDU TEXT {{URDU TEXT}} ' The perusal of the Form 'P' reproduced above would show that the applicant is required to make declaration that he, she is residing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir continuously for a period of not less than five years before making application and intends to live there permanently for the remainder of his/her life. This form further stipulates a declaration from the applicant that he/she is making the statement with a view to obtaining domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
26. ' Similarly in the domicile certificate granted in Form (1) reproduced above it is certified that the grantee of the said certificate has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 5 of the State Subject Act and that the same is being issued to him in accordance with the aforesaid law and the Rules made thereunder. The above-mentioned contents of the aforesaid prescribed forms leave no manner of doubt that the domicile certificate granted by any District Magistrate of Azad Kashmir is of domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not any of its particular area or District. A Division Bench of this Court has taken similar view in a case entitled Miss Shamim Ali v.
27. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council through its Secretar and others (1), wherein it has been held that the domicile certificate as visualized by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subject Act and the Rule made there under means the domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of any particular District.
28. ' It may not be out of place to mention here that section 5 of the State Subject Act under which the council is empowered to grant domicile certificate has almost been drafted on the lines and in terms of section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act (It of 1951). The certificate of domicile granted under the above section of the Pakistan Citizenship Act is a domicile certificate for Pakistan and not of any part thereof. This legal position has also been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Yar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, Political Agent, Loralai and others (2), as well as in the judgment of Baluchistan High Court recorded in the case entitled Abdul Hafeez Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, Khazder and others (3). In the former case, it has been held that domicile and permanent resident are two distinct and separate concepts and that holder of the domicile certificate under Citizenship Act would be deemed to be a domicile of Pakistan and not of a Province or a part thereof, while in the later case, it has been held that the concept of domicile of a District or a particular area of country is foreign or extraneous to the Citizenship Act and domicile certificate granted under it is not to be confused to mean the certificate of residence of any particular area or District of Pakistan.
29. ' The net result of the above discussion is that under the State Subject Act and the Rules made thereunder, any District Magistrate of Azad lam= and Kashmir has the discretion to issue domicile certificate to any person if he is satisfied that such a person has been residing in any part of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for a period of not less than five years immediately before making his application for the grant of such a certificate and intends to live in Azad Jammu and Kashmir permanently and he is not debarred from issuing domicile certificate to an applicant who is not the permanent resident of his District. In this view of the matter the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad had wrongly refused to issue domicile certificate to the respondent No, 2 on the ground that she was not a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District and the council was perfectly justified in upsetting his order, rejecting the application of the said respondent for issuance of domicile certificate and directing him to issue the same to her.
30. ' Apart from the above reason, this petition is also not maintainable yet on the another ground. The odrer of the Council impugned in this writ petition has been taken exception on the ground that respondent "Jo. 2 is not a permanent resident of District Mirpur but that of Muzaffarabad and was also
(1) 1983 CLC 62.6 (2) PLD 1980 SC 300
(3) PLJ 1983 Quetta 1 not residing at Muzaffarabad at the time of her making application for the grant of domicile certificate to the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad and as such was not eligible to obtain domicile certificate from District Muzaffarabad under the relevant law and rules whereas the said respondent claims to be permanent resident of District Muzaffarabad where her father after being affected by the construction of Mangla Dam has permanently settled by constructing a house there. The decision on the above conflicting claims of the petitioner and the said respondent depends upon the results of the inquiry to be made in the matter but this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction seldom enters into inquiry to decide the disputed questions of fact which function primarily falls within the province of the appropriate tribunal or authority. In the present petition the question which we are required to determine is as to whether or not respondent No, L is a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad. This being the question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on it under section 44 of the Constitution.
31. The powper forum for deciding the same is either the District Magistrate Muzaffarabad or the council which is the revisional as well as appellate authority of the District Magistrate under the State Subject Act and Rules made thereunder.
32. ' For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.
33. Before parting with the case, I feel constrained to express myself on the advisability of determining the District of permanent residence of a person for the purpose of his nomination against one of the seats reserved for a particular district in Districtwise quota system in the Professional and Technical Institutions of Pakistan on the basis of the certificate of domicile granted by the District Magistrate of that District. It needs hardly any mention that the purpose or object behind fixing the quota of each district of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the seats reserved for Azad Jammu and Kashmir students in the various educational institutions of Pakistan, is to make equitable distribution of such seats among the candidates of all the districts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and this object can only be achieved if only the permanent residents of a District are eligible for nomination against the quota of seats allocated to their respective district. But if, as is the case under the present system, the candidate is considered to be the permanent resident of that District whose District Magistrate has issued domicile certificate in his favour then the possibility of the above object being not fully realised but frustrated, is not altogether ruled out. The domicile certificate granted by any District Magistrate under the State Subject Act and the Rules made thereunder is, as stated earlier, a domicile certificate of whole of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the person possessing the same shall be deemed to be the domicile of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of any particular district and as such the resident of one district being legally entitled to obtain certificate of domicile from any District Magistrate of Azad Jammull and Kashmir shall be able to secure nomination against one of the seats falling to the share of some other District under the District wise quota system. Thus the present criteria of determining the District of permanent residence of any candidate on the strength of domicile certificate produced by him alongwith his application is defective and unsatisfactory as it fails to safeguard the legitimate rights of permanent residents of a particular district conferred on them by the Government by way of fixing quota of each district in the seats reserved for Azad Jammu and Kashmir nationals in the Educational Institutions of Pakistan.
34. ' In order to safeguard the rights of the permanent residents of each district and to eliminate any chance of usurpation of any seat from the quota of one District by the residents of other District, the possibility of which is always present under the system in vogue for determining the permanent residence of a candidate for nomination against the seats reserved for the State subjects in the Educational Institution of Pakistan, the Government may consider the desirability of evolving some fool proof and equitable method for the aforesaid purpose in place of present one under which determination of the district of permanent residence of a candidate and his consequent nomination against the seats reserved for any particular District often given rise to districtwise rivalries among the candidates and cause heartburning among them besides involving them in fruitless litigation resulting not only in the wastage of their precious time but also in financial as well as mental worries and strains. The domicile certificate does not serve the purpose for which it is being used in the matter of nomination of candidates against the quota of seats fixed for each district in the Colleges of Pakistan and it appears that the Council, at the time enacting the State Subject Act, never intended the domicile certificate granted under the said Act to be used for the above purpose. To avoid the undesirable consequences resulting from the nomination being made on the basis of domicile certificate and enumerated above, the certificate of permanent residence, in my view, shall be a better and adequate substitute for the domicile certificate and will fully achieve the object which prompted the Government to fix the districtwise quota in the seats reserved in the Educational Institutions of Pakistan for the candidates of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
35. ' Therefore, the Government may consider the framing of the Rules for the grant of permanent residence certificate to be taken into consideration in place of domicile certificate for the said purpose, keeping in view the legitimate interests of all the State subjects including the refugees from occupied part of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
36. ' The above observations are of general character which may not be taken to have any bearing on the merits of the present petition.