' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN, J.--Since both the writ petitions entitled above arise out of the same order of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, and identical questions of law are involved for the decision thereon, we proposed to dispose them of by this single order.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the above writ petitions are that in the various Professional and Educational Institutions of Higher Studies in Pakistan certain number of seats are reserved for the State Subjects of Jammu and Kashmir the allocation against which is made by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through its Nomination Board on the basis of merits from amongst the candidates seeking nomination against such reserved seats. The Azad Kashmir Government has also made distribution of such reserved seats amongst all its four districts and the refugees from Jammu and Kashmir State settled in Pakistan and makes nomination against the quota fixed for each District of Azad Kashmir from amongst the permanent residents of that District on the basis of merits after calling applications for nomination against such seats. A candidate for the nomination against one of the seats reseved for his District in any Educational Institution is required to submit certain documents alongwith his application including the certificate of domicile granted by the District Magistrate concerned which is considered as a proof of his being the permanent resident of the District whose District Magistrate has granted the same.
3. Miss Rukhshanda Aslam and Miss Shamim Ali Mallick, petitioners and Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent in the above writ petitions submitted their applications to the Nomination Board for the nomination against the seats reserved for the girls of Muzaffarabad District in the Medical Colleges of Pakistan for the M.B., B.S. Course for the year 1983-84. Ghousia Bashir respondent's application was unaccompanied by the Domicile Certificate but she applied for the grant of the same to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad which was rejected by the said Magistrate vide his order dated 8-11-1983 (Copy Annexure 'E') on the ground of her being the permanent resident of Mirpur District and not that of District Muzaffarabad.
4. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Magistrate, she filed an appeal against it to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council which accepted the same, set aside the impugned order of the District Magistrate and directed him to issue the Domicile Certificate to her from the District of Muzaffarabad vide his order dated 20-12-1983 (Annexure 'C') with the Writ Petition No.35 of 1984. As a result of the above order of the Council, the respondent was placed at S.No.3 while Miss Rukhshanda Aslam and Miss Shamim All Mallick, petitioner were shown at S.Nos.6 and 7, respectively on the merits list prepared by the Nomination Board pertaining to the girls candidates for the nomination to the Medical Colleges of Pakistan against the quota reserved for the District of Muzaffarabad.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of the Council, directing the District Magistrate to issue Domicile Certificate to Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent in the above writ petition, Miss Rukhshanda Aslam, petitioner filed the present writ petition, challenging the validity of the said order. Her writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated 7-5-1984 but on an appeal by the said petitioner the above judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court and the case was remanded back for fresh decision in the light of observation made in its judgment after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. While the writ petition of Miss Rukhshanda Aslam was pending disposal after the remand of the case by the Supreme Court, Miss Shamim All Mallick also challenged the validity of the order of the Council, directing the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad to issue domicile certificate in favour of Miss Ghousia Bashir, on almost similar grounds as were made the basis of attack in the earlier writ petition mentioned above.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
In both the above writ petitions, the validity and legality of the order of the Council directing the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad to issue certificate of domicile to Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent has been challenged mainly on the ground that the said respondent being a permanent resident of District Mirpur was not legally entitled to obtain domicile certificate form Muzaffarabad District.
8. In order to appreciate the above contention it appears pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions of law and the Rules made thereunder governing the issuance of domicile certificates, which are respectively section 5 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subject Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and Rule 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subject Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which read as under:- "5. Certificate of domicile.--The Council or any other authority specified by the Council may, upon an application made to it is the prescribed manner containing the prescribed particulars, grant an 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."
"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-III) 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 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 IV).
(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."
9. A perusal of the above provisions of the law and the Rules would show that a person is entitled to obtain a certificate of domicile from any District Magistrate of Azad Kashmir if he has been continuously A residing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir for a period of five years and also intends to live there permanently and the District Magistrate is legally bound to grant him the said certificate on his being satisfied that such an applicant fulfils the above conditions and that the facts stated in his application are correct. A District Magistrate has no power to refuse the grant of domicile certificate to an applicant for the same who although fulfils the afore-mentioned conditions but does not reside permanently in his District or at least has not continuously resided there for a period not less than five years for the simple reason that section 5 of the Act read with rule 7 of the Rules made thereunder does not lay down any such condition as pre-requisite for the grant of the domicile certificate. When the question of eligibility to the grant of domicile certificate from District Muzaffarabad to Miss Ghousia Bashir respondent is considered and examined in the light of the above legal position, we are left with no alternative but to hold that she, as a right, was entitled to obtain domicile certificate from the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad on her applying for grant of the same to her and the District Magistrate, was under legal obligation to issue the same in her favour and by rejecting her application, he had acted unlawfully by failing to do an act which the relevant law enjoined upon him to do. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the Azad.Jammu and Kashmir Council either suffered from lack of authority or was illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that the said respondent was not a permanent resident of Mirpur District. As stated earlier, it was not necessary for her to be a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District for the purpose of obtaining domicile certificate from the District Magistrate of Muzaffarabad and all that was required from her was to satisfy the District Magistrate that she had been continuously residing in Azad Kashmir for the last five years and intended to live permanently there. Both these conditions were fully satisfied in her case as it is not even disputed by the petitioners in the above writ petitions that she had not lived in Azad Kashmir for a period not less than five years previous to her making the application to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad for the grant of domicile certificate or that she does not intends to live permanently in Azad Kashmir and have only taken exception to the impugned order on the ground of her being a permanent resident of District Mirpur where her father resides permanently and owns ancestral property.
10. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the opinion that the domicile certificate granted under the Act is a certificate of domicile for Azad Kashmir and not of its any part or District and the same is to be granted to any person by any District Magistrate of the Azad Kashmir on his being satisfied that such a person has been residing in the territory of Azad Kashmir continuously for the period of last five years with the intention to permanently reside in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and that the other particulars furnished by him in his application are correct.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in 1983 CLC 626 has also come to the conclusion that the domicile certificate granted under the Act is a domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of any particular District or place in Azad Kashmir. In the above case it was held that:- "it is obvious from the provisions contained in section 5 read with rule 7, domicile certificate visualized in the said Act and the Rules, is a Domicile Certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of a particular District or place of it and that the perusal of the prescribed Form-P contained in Appendix-Ill on which the applications for obtaining domicile certificate is to be made also shows that an applicant has to apply for obtaining domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of a particular place of it."
12. However, in the said case the Division Bench was of the further view:- "That the place mentioned against the column 'domicile Ki Jaga' in Form P-1 in which the certificate of domicile is issued by the District Magistrate would indicate the place where the certificate holder is permanently settled in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir at the time of issuing the domicile certificate and it cannot be said that would merely indicate the place of resident of the person holding the certificate, even if it is temporary place of residence and not his permanent board or home."
13. The learned Single Judge who previously decided the writ petition entitled 'Miss Rukhshanda Aslam v. Nomination Board' sought support from the above cited decision of the Division Bench for holding that the grantee of the domicile certificate under the Act is a domicile of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of any particular part or District of it by referring to only the first mentioned view of the Division Bench namely that the domicile certificate visualized under the Act is a domicile certificate of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of a particular District or place but did not make any reference to the view of the said Division Bench to the effect that the place mentioned against the words 'domicile Ki Jaga' in form P-1 would indicate the permanent place of residence of the holder of the domicile certificate and on account of this omission the Supreme Court on appeal against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge has remanded the case back observing that the Single Judge has misconstrued the decision of the Division Bench and has directed that the said ruling of the Division Bench may be considered by the larger bench if the Single Judge holds the view different from that of the Division Bench.
14. We have thoroughly gone through the judgment of the Division Bench, reported as 1983 CLC 626 with a view to examining its correctness or otherwise. In the said judgment, the learned Judges comprising Division Bench have given two findings. Firstly, that the domicile cetificate visualized in the Act and Rules made thereunder is a domicile certificate of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir and not of any particular District or place and its holder is a domicile of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and secondly, that the place mentioned against the column pertaining to the 'place of domicile' in Form-P-1 would indicates the place where the certificate holder is permanently settled in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir at the time of issuance of the domicile certificate and this entry can be validly relied upon by the Nomination Board or any other authority while deciding the question as to the District in which the certificate holder is permanently settled.
15. In the circumstances of the present case, we are of the view, that the permanent place of resident of Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent is not very much relevant for the decision of the writ petitions for two-fold reasons. Firstly, the determination of permanent resident of the applicant for the grant of domicile certificate becomes unnecessary in view of our conclusion that neither he is required to be a permanent resident of the District to whose District Magistrate he applies for the grant of the same nor his continuous residence in the said District for a period of five years prior to his making application is needed to make him eligible for obtaining domicile certificate under the Act. Secondly, the validity of the order of the Council whereby the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad has been directed to issue domicile certificate in favour of Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent has been made the subject of challenge in the writ petitions and not the certificate, if any, issued by the District Magistrate in persuance of the impugned order of the Council. As a matter of fact, in none of the above writ petitions such a certificate has been mentioned to have been issued by the District Magistrate nor any copy of the same has been filed alongwith it and therefore, when there is nothing on the record to show that whether any domicile certificate by the District Magistrate of Muzaffarabad has been issued in favour of the said respondent and if issued, which place of her domicile has been shown in its (Form P-1) relevant column, the question of expressing any opinion as to whether the place of domicile shown in the domicile certificate granted by the District Magistrate in Form P-1 in favour of Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent is her place of permanent resident or not, does not arise and expression of any such opinion becomes unnecessary. Probably for this reason the lerned Single Judge who decided the writ petition of Miss Rukhshanda Aslam, petitioner did not refer to the view of the Division Bench held in its judgment mentioned above that the place mentioned against the words 'domicile ki jaga' indicate the place where the certificate holder is permanently settled in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir at the time of issuance of the Domicile Certificate.
16. However, in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, given in the remand order that the above ruling of the Division Bench should be kept in view and its correctness or otherwise be examined by a larger bench while deciding the writ petition, we have considered the above view of the Division Bench in the light of the relevant law but find ourselves, with due deference to the opinion of the Division Bench, unable to agree with it.
17. In our view, the place mentioned against the column pertaining to the 'place of domicile' in the printed Form P-1, does not denote the place of permanent residence of the grantee of the domicile certificate but it only indicate the place of her ordinary residence in Azad Jammu and Kashmir at the time of the issuance of the said certificate. It appears pertinent here to reproduce the Form-P (Appendix-Ill) which is the prescribed form for making an application for the grant of domicile certificate and Form P-1 (Appendix-IV) in which the domicile certificate is granted by the District Magistrate:- [URDU TEXT] [URDU TEXT]
18. The perusal of Form-P would show that the applicant for the grant of domicile certificate is required to state the place, Tehsil and District of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir where he/she arrived from his/her previous residence alongwith the date of his/her arrival there. In adition to this, she/he is also required to give his/her other particulars such as married/single/widow, name of wife or husband, names of childrens and their ages, trade or occupation and the marks of identification. The domicile certificate granted by the District Magistrate in Form P-1 consists of two parts. In the first part, the District Magistrate grants the certificate of domicile to the applicant after certifying that he fulfils all the conditions which are laid down under section 5 of the Act for the Grant of certificate of domicile and that he is satisfied with regard to the particulars of the grantee of the certificate given in the certificate of domicile.
19. The particulars required to be given partaining to the grantee of the domicile certificate in the domicile certificate are exactly the same which the applicant for the grant of the same is required to mention in his application. Under section 5 of the Act, the District Magistrate may grant certificate of domicile to an applicant, if he is satisfied that the particulars given by him in his application are correct and he has been continuously living in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir for a period of not less than five years with the intention to live there permanently. It is in accordance with this provision of law that a District Magistrate gives the particulars of the holder of the domicile certificate in the second part of the said certificate in Form P-1 after being satisfied that the particulars given by the applicant in his application for the grant of domicile certificate are correct.
So, the District Magistrate would be under legal obligation to mention the permanent place of residence of the grantee of the domicile certificate in Form P-1 against the expression to the effect 'place of domicile' only if the applicant for the said certificate is required to state his place of, permenent residence in his application (printed Form-P) for the grant of certificate of domicile but the law under which the domicile certificate is granted does not require such an application to be a permanent resident of Azad Kashmir to be eligible for the grant of the domicile certificate and, as stated earlier, the only condition he is to fulfill for the purpose of securing domicile certificate is that he should have been continuously residing for a period not less than five years in the Azad Kashmir with the intention to live there permanently. Thus, when the applicant for the grant of domicile certificate needs not to be the permanent resident of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir at the time of making his application, the question of his mentioning permanent residence against the column to the effect "place of domicile" in his application given in Form P does not arise and consequently the question of District Magistrate's mentining the place of his permentant residence against the similar expression in Form P-1 also becomes out of question.
20. Moreover, under section 5 of the Act, the District Magistrate is not called upon to make any inquiry as to the permanent residence of the person making application to him for the grant of Domicile Certificate and he may grant him the certificate, if he is satisfied that such person had been living in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir for a period of not less than five years and intends to live in Azad Kashmir permanently and thus how would it be possible for the District Magistrate to mention the place of permanent residence of the person to whom he grants the domicile certificate under the said Act when he does not embark upon any such enquiry as to the permenant residence of the applicant for the grant of domicile certificate.
21. The reading of Form-P and P-1 under discussion combindly makes the meaning of the expression 'place of domicile' appearing in column-IV of Form P-1. The person applying for the grant of domicile certificate, to the District Magistrate is to mention the place of his arrival in any Tehsil and District of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir and in our view, it is the place so mentioned by him in his application that the District Magistrate is required to state against the expression 'place of domicile' in the certificate of domicile provided, of course, he is satisfied that the statement of the applicant to that effect is correct. To make our above view clear, we would like to give an example. An applicant for the grant of the domicile certificate stating Chacksawari, Tehsil and District Mirpur as his place of arrival in Azad Kashmir in his application in Form-P, the same place and District would be shown against the column to the effect 'place of domicile' in Form P-1 by the District Magistrate on being satisfied about the correctness of the statement of the said applicant in that respect.
22. There is yet another reason on account of which we are incline to he .d the view that the expression 'place of domicile' under discussior do not mean the place of permanent residence. The words 'domicile and 'permanent residence' are not synonymous and their dictionar meanings are quite different. The domicile and permanent residence ar two different and separate concept specially, when they are considered against the context of the scheme of the Act and the Rules unde which the domicile certificate is granted.
23. As held earlier, in view of the provisions of section 5 of the Act and rule 7 of the Rules, certificate of domicile is a certificate of domicile of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and its grantee need not to be a permanent resident of the Azad Kashmir at the time of applying for the same, when the law does not make compulsory for the person seeking domicile certificate to be a permanent resident of Azad Kashmir at the time of his applying for the same, the contention that the place mentioned against the words 'place of domicile' in the Form P-1 donote place of permanent residence of the holder of the certificate of domicile does not appear to be impressive and wieghty and the expression 'place of domicile' cannot be interpreted to mean the place of permanent residence.
The word domicile is to be construed in accordance with its primary and ordinary meaning which by no stretch of imagination, can be inter preted so mean permanent residence. A permanent residence of Azad Kashmir is a domicile of Azad Kashmir but the domicile of Azad Kashmir as contemplated by the Act is not necessarily the permanent resident of Azad Kashmir.
24. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that the expression 'place of domicile' appearing in Form P-1 (Appendix-IV) does not mean the place of permanent residence and the place mentioned against the aforesaid expression does not denote the place of permanent residence of the grantee of the domicile certificate but his ordinary place of residence at the time of his making application for the said certificate and found to be correct to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate granting the certificate of domicile to him.
25. The learned Single Judge who previously decided the writ petition of Miss Rukhshanda Aslam, petitioner was also of the view, that the said writ petition was not maintainable also on the ground that the decision of the same depended upon the determination of the question as to whether or not Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent is a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District and that the above question being a question of fact cannot be enquired into by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and that the proper forum for deciding the same is either the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad or the Council which have the powers to issue the domicile certificate under the Act and rules made thereunder. However, the leaned Judges of the Supreme Court while remanding the case on an appeal against the said judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court has also observed that the learned Single Judge without considering the doumentary evidence on the record refused to draw any conclusion on the above controvercial fact on the short ground that the question of facts being disputed, those cannot be probed into in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and one of the reasons for remanding the case was their above observation. So irrespective of the fact, whether any such determination on the disputed question of fact referred to above would be in any way helpful in deciding the above writ petitions, we proposed to examine the evidence led by the parties in this respect. Miss Rukhshanda Aslam, petitioner has filed with her writ petition documents Annexure B/1 to B/4 in support of her contention that Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent is not a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District whereas the said respondent has filed documents Annexures A,B, B/1, C,C/1, D and E to rebut the above contention of the said petitioner and in support of her claim being permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District.
26. We, now propose to examine the above documents filed by the parties with a view to determining as to whether the factum of the permanent residence of Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent can be decided on their basis.
27. The evidence furnished by the petitioner Miss Rukhshanda Aslam in the shape of documents Annexures B/1 to B/4, only shows that the respondent Miss Ghousia Bashir had been receiving education at Mirpur and Kotli Districts and living there for the last three to four years prior to her making application for the grant of domicile certificate. Annexure B/1 is a photostat copy of the certificate of Intermediate which shows that the said respondent had passed her Intermediate Examination held in the year 1983 from the Government Girls College, Kotli. Annexure B/2 is photostat copy of the provisional certificate from the Principal, Government College Kotli certifying that the said respondent had appeared in the F.Sc. examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Mirpur for the year, 1983 and passed the same in first division. Annexure B/3 is a photostat copy of the certificate from the District Health Officer, Kotli showing that the said respondent was examined by him on 28-11-1983 and found medically fit for the higher studies.
Annexure B/4 is a photostat copy of the certificate of Matriculation which goes to show that the respondent under consideration passed her said examination in the year, 1982 from Mirpur.
28. Now we come to consider the documents annexed with the written statement filed by Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent. Annexure 'A' is a copy of the certificate from the Commissioner, Mangla Dam that the parents of the father of the respondent are Mangla Dam affected persons whereas the documents Annexure 'E' and B/1' are to the effect that Ch.Bashir Hussain, the father of the respondent had purchased a piece of land in Muzaffarabad in the year, 1978 and had got sanctioned the plan of the house to be built on it from the Municipal Committee, Muzaffarabad.
Annexure 'C' is a photostat copy of the certificate by the Headmistress of the Government Girls High School, Muzaffarabad that Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent remained admitted in the said School from the years 1976 to 1979. Similarly, Annexure '6/1' is a certificate from the Principal, Government Girls College, Muzaffarabad to the effect that the said respondent joined the above Institution in the year, 1981 and after few months left it. Annexure 'D' is a certificate from the Government Pilot High School, Muzaffarabad, certifying that Nasir Bashir and Yasir Bashir sons of Ch.Bashir Hussain remained students of the said school and left the same on 5-9-1981 after obtaining the Migration Certificates.
29. The evidence mentioned above led by the parties in support of their respective contention as to the permanent residence of the respondent Miss Ghousia Bashir is of not such a nature and substance on the basis of which it may be possible for this Court to determine the controversy between the parties with regard to the above question conclusively. The mere fact that Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent had been studying in the Education Institutions of Mirpur and Kotli fo about four to five years prior to her making application for the grant of domicile certificate to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad is not sufficient and cannot be made the basis for holding that she is o permanent residence of either of the Districts in which she had been studying especially in view of the undisputed fact that her father being a Government servant was posted in the said Districts during the period the said respondent had been receiving education in the Educational Institutions of those Districts.
30. Similarly, the evidence of the said respondent that her father has purchased a plot and constructed a house thereon in Muzaffarabad Town and that she had been studying and living with her father during his posting as a Government servant there per se is not sufficient to reach a conclusion that she is a permanent reident of Muzaffarabad District. The elaborate inquiry is needed for the determination of the permanent residence of Miss Ghousia Bashir, respondent which this Court in its writ jurisdiction is not in a position to embark upon and have to confine itself to the documents filed by the parties with the writ petitions and written statements which as held earlier do not lead to any definite conclusion for a decision on the question under discussion. The proper forum for conducting such an enquiry is either the District Magistrate or the Council which have the powers to grant domicile certificate.
31. Even otherwise, in view of our finding that for the issuance of domicile certificate, it is not necessary for the applicant to be a permanent resident of a District from whose District Magistrate he seeks to obtain domicile certificate and a District Magistrate may grant the said certificate to any person who has been residing continuously for a period of five years in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir and intends to permanently live there, the determination of the above question in either way is not helpful to any party or to the decision of the case.
32. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also argued that the provisions of the State Subject Act and the Rules made thereunder in respect of grant of domicile certificate are in conflict with and in derrogation to the relevant provisions of I.L.84 Council Resolution 804 of 1935 and 13-L/1889 which have been given protection under the constitution and as such the same are unalwful and of no legal effect. The above arguments proceed on the ground that there is no concept of the domicile certificate in the said enactment ,which held the field before the passing of the State Subject Act, 1880. We do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as there is apparently no conflict between the State Subject Act, 1880 and Rules made thereunder and the provious law on the subject with regard to the grant of domicile certificate.
Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there exist conflicting provisions with regards to the above subject in the aforesaid laws, the provision of the latter Act would prevail over the previous law.
33. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the state subject Act does not provide any provisions for appeal or revision and only the Rules made thereunder make such a provision and as such the Rule making such provisions is ultra vires of the Act and thus any action taken in pursuance thereof is without jurisdiction. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also devoid of any force. The rules have been made by the same authority which had the powers to make legislation in the matter of nationality, citizenship and domicile and not by any authority other than the one which had enacted the Act itself. Under subsection (2) of section 31 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, the Council shall have the exclusive powers to make law in respect of any matter in the Council legislative list set up in the Third Schedule of the Constitution and thus the above provision of the Constitution read with item 1 of the said Schedule leaves no manner of doubt that the council is the legislative body in respect of the matters pertaining to the citizenship and domicile. In this view of the matter, rule 10 of the Rules conferring powers on the Council to entertain any application, appeal, review or revision application and may, subject to rule 6 cancel, suspend, invalidate, extend or revise any certificate issued under rule or may grant certificate refused by any other authority under the Rules or pass a' .y other order, it may deem necessary for fit, is perfectly lawful and cannot be held ultra vires of the Act or the Council. Therefore; in view Of the provisions of the aforesaid Rues, the Council enjoyed the powers to pass the impugned order directing the District Magistrate to issue Domicile Certificate in favour of respondent, Miss Ghousia Bashir.
34. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the impugned order of the Council is perfectly lawful which does not suffer from any illegality or want of jurisdiction. As regards the worth it possesses, it is for the Nomination Board to give it any weight or not, keeping in view its own rules governing the nominations of the candidates against the seats reserved in the various professional, technical and educational institutions of Pakistan for the candidates of Azad Kashmir and the refugees from Jammu and Kashmir State settled in Pakistan. We accordingly dismiss both the above writ petitions with no order as to the costs.