' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-This appeal, by leave, has been directed against the judgment of the High Court. Dated 9-12-1984, whereby two separate writ petitions filed by Miss Rakhshanda Aslam and Miss Shamim. Ali Malik, appellants, were dismissed by a single judgment.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that Miss Rakhshanda Aslam and Miss Shaman Ali Malik are State subjects and domiciles of Azad Kashmir and are permanent residents of Muzaffarabad District. They applied to the Nomination Board; constituted by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government for nominating the deserving candidates for admission to the various Medical Colleges and other Technical Institutions in Pakistan, It may be stated here that the Azad Kashmir Government had allocated seats to each of the Districts of Azad Kashmir and Kashmir refugees., settled in Pakistan, on the basis of quota system. The appellants were candidates for their nomination to any Medical College in Pakistan against the quota of the seats reserved for Muzaffarabad District, Miss Ghosia Bashir, respondent, also sought her nomination out of the quota of the seats reserved for Muzaffarabad District on the ground that her parents, after the construction of Mangla Dam, were obliged to abandon their permanent residence in Mirpur District, and adopted Muzaffarabad District as their permanent place of abode; and that a house was also constructed by the father of Miss Ghosia Bashir at Muzaffarabad after acquiring a piece of land in Muzaffarabad town. It is also the case of Miss Ghosia Bislair that she resided with her parents at Muzaffarabad and also got her education in the educational institutions of Muzaffarabad as long as her father remained at Muzaffarabad in connection with his service. However, according to tier, when her father was transferred to Kotli District she was obliged to go alongwith her parents and got her further education in the said District. Thus, she contends that she being a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District is entitled to get admission out of the quota of seats reserved for Muzaffarabad District. As the Nomination Board, constituted by the Azad Kashmir Government, while making the nominations of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Nationals on the basis of quota system demands a domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir State from every candidate seeking nomination, Miss Ghosia Bashir applied to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad for the issuance of domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir State as envisaged under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects Rules, 1980 (hereinafter shall be referred to as Rules). The District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad refused to issue the Domicile Certificate to her. She went up in appeal before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council which accepted her appeal and directed the. District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad to issue< domicile certificate to her 'from Muzaffarabad District'; Consequently the District Magistrata in pursuance of the order of the council, dated 20-12-1983 isued domicile certificate in her favour.
3. The appellants challenged the order of the council through two parate writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that Miss Ghosia Bashir was a permanent resident of Mirpur District and as such the council had no authority to pass the impugned order directing the District Magistrate to issue a domicile certificate in her favour from Muzaffarabad. District. The High Court consolidated equal , both the aforesaid writ petitions and dismissed the same, inter alia, on the ground that as any District Magistrate in Azad Kashmir is competent under the relevant provisions of law to issue a domicile certificate, the direction of the council to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad to issue a domicile certificate to Miss Ghosia Bashir from Muzaffarabad District does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It has been further opined by the High Court that domicile certificate, issued under law, would be deemed to be a domicile of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State and not of a particular District of Azad Kashmir. The Full Bench of the High Court also dissented from an earlier Division Bench's judgment of that Court wherein it was held that a place mentioned in Form 'P4', Appendix TV against the words {{URDU TEXT}} would indicate the permanent place of residence of a certificate holder and not merely his ordinary place of residence. Dealing with the factual aspect of the issue regarding the permanent place of the residence of Miss Ghosia Bashir, the High Court opined that the material on the record was not sufficient enough to decide the question one way or the other.
4. We have heard the arguments and gone through the record. Before adverting to the controversial points involved in the appeal, we feel it expedient to reproduce the relevant provisions of law on the subject.
' Section 5 of the State Subjects Act, 1980 "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 Kastmir."
' Rule 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects Rules, 1980 "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 (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 `P4' (Appendix IV).
(3) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-rule (2) may file an appeal with the Azad Government at' Inc State of Jammu and Kashmir within thirty days and the Government may pass such order as it deems fit."
5. For the sake of convenience we also deem it proper to reproduce below the contents of the Appendix III and Appendix IV, which contain respectively Forms 'P' and {{URDU TEXT}} ' The application for issuance of a domicile certificate is to be made in terms of Form '13' while the certificate is to be issued in terms of Form 'P-I' in view of the rule 7 of the Rules reproduced above.
6. A perusal of section 5 of the State Subjects` Act, 1980, and rule 7 of the Azad Jammu and .Kashmir State Subjects Rules, 1980, clearly, reveals that although the certificate of domicile issued in favour of a person would. Primarily be a certificate of domicile of Azad Jammu and Kashmir State and not of a particular District ,of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir, yet in view of the contents of Form. `P-1' referred to in rule 7 certain particulars including the place of domicile of the person concerned alongwith Tehsil and District in which such place is situated is also to be mentioned in the domicile certificate. A Division Bench of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court in a case Miss Shamim Ali v. 'lead Jammu and Kashmir Council through Secretary and others (1), opined that although the domicile .Certificate issued under rule 7 would be a domicile certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir State and not of a particuhu District; yet ail the same the place mentioned against the words {{URDU TEXT}}" would indicate the permanent place of residence of the certificate-holder and not his ordinary place of residence; and as such the Nomination Board or any other authority can validly rely upon the aforesaid entry in a domicile certificate for the purpose of ascertaining the District in which the concerned certificate-holder is permanently settled. The Full Bench, which delivered the impugned judgment, dissented from the aforesaid view of the Division Bench and held that the particulars mentioned against the words{{URDU TEXT}}" would merely indicate the ordinary place of residence of a certificate-holder and not his permanent place of residence. The learned Judges were of the view, that as neither section S of the Act nor rule 7 of the Rules visualises any inquiry with regard to the permanent place of residence of a certificate-holder, it is not necessary for the District Magistrate to ascertain the permanent place or residence of the person concerned. Thus, the place mentioned against the column containing the expression {{URDU TEXT}}" would essentialy indicate the place of ordinary residence of the person in whose favour the certificate is issued. It may be observed here that an appendix or a schedule appended to an Act or Rules is part of the Act or Rules. As the case may be, until and unless, of course, it is contradictory to the Act or Rules. According to rule 7, the domicile certificate is to be issued according to Form `P-I". In the main body of Form 'P-I' it is not mentioned that the certificate of domicile would be deemed to be a certificate of Azad Jammu and Kashmir State. The contents of first part of Form `P-I' merely show that a certificate of domicile is issued in favour of the person concerned. It is only in the second part of the Form `P-I" where the place of domicile of the person in whose favour the certificate is issued is to be mentioned in the relevant column alongwith Tehsil and' District in which such place is situated. Thus, if we interpret the expression {{URDU TEXT}} to be indicative only of the ordinary place of residence of certificate holder, then it would Imply that the domicile ,certificate does not specifically say that the certificate-holder is a domicile of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State. In column 3rd of Form `P-I' the address of the certificate-holder is to be mentioned and that of course would be indicative of the ordinary place of the residence of the certificate holder. Obviously the framer of the Rules have consciously written the word "domicile" in column 4, which is clearly indicative of the fact that the expression was not used in the ordinary dictionary meaning but rather in the legal sense in which it is understood in the realm of law, i. e.
The permanent place of abode of a
(1) 1983 C L .0 626 person. It appears that the learned Judges in the High Court were mislead by the copy of the Form, Exh. 'P-I', placed before them, which was incorrect and was not correctly prepared from the original.
Form 'P-I' has been reproduced at page 13 of the impugned judgment of the High Court. A perusal of the said copy shows that in column 3rd of the second part of the Form TT instead of word {{URDU TEXT}}" (address) the word {{URDU TEXT}}" (profession) has been .Wrongly recorded in the copy. It may be observed that word {{URDU TEXT}} (profession) appears in another column of Form `P-I which occurs towards the end of the Form `P-1'. Thus. Finding given by the High Court that particulars mentioned against the expression {{URDU TEXT}} in Form 'P-I' would not indicate the permanent place of residence. Of a certificate-holder and would be only indicative of his ordinary or temporary place of residence is incorrect and misconceived.
7. The word 'domicile has been subject of interpretation in various cases. In A 1 R 1933 Rang. 193 .The word 'domicile' was interpreted to mean the place which were 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. In AIR 1951 Bbop. 1, the word C '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 and not a place where he resides temporarily. Again in AIR 1955 SC 334 the word 'domicile' was held to mean permanent home of a person.
8. According to Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary ' the word 'domicile' means: the country in which a person is, or is presumed') to be, permanently resident; the place of a person's permanent home.
9. According to the Treatise, "Words and Phrases legally defined", compiled by Jhon B. Saunders Volume 2, the word 'domicile' is a under:- "By domicile we mean home, the permanent home; and if you do not understand your permanent home, I am afraid that no illustration drawn from foreign writers or foreign languages will very much help you to it. . . . . . : ' Whicker v. Hume 1858 7 H. L. Cas. 124 per Lord Cranworth, at p. 160'.
'There are several definitions of domicile which appear to me pretty nearly to approach correctness. One very good definition is this; Habitation in a place with the intention of remaining there for ever, unless some circumstance should occur to alter his intention.' Ibid., per Lord Wensleydal, at page 164.
'I would venture to suggest that the definition of an acquired domicile might stand thus: That place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and his family, not for a mere special and temporary purpose, but* with a present intention of making it his permanent borne, unless and until something (which is "expected or the happening of which is uncertain) shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home'.' V. C., at page 376."
10. It is evident from what has been stated above that the words J {{URDU TEXT}} mentioned in Form 'P-I' would not indicate the ordinary place of residence of a certificate-holder but it would indicate his permanent place of residence. Therefore, the view of the High Court that the place mentioned against the expression '{{URDU TEXT}}in Form 'P-I' would indicate only the ordinary place of residence of a person is incorrect! And is not tenable.
11. Now, the next question arises as to whether it is not incumbent upon the District Magistrate to ascertain toe permanent place of domicile of a person because section 5 of the At or rule 7 does not require so. The High Court has expressed the view that as the Act and rules do not envisage to ascertain the permanent place of residence of the person seeking a domicile certificate, it is not necessary to make any inquiry in that regard. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Judges of the High Court. In fact the plain reading of rule 7 clearly shows that the domicile certificate would be issued in favour of person concerned only if he establishes that he has adopted Azad Kashmir as his permanent place of abode. As has already been pointed out, rule 7 stipulates that the District Magistrate must satisfy himself that the facts mentioned in the application are correct and that the applicant has been continuously residing in Azad Kashmir for a period of not less than five years and intends to live permanently in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
The phraseology employed in rule 7 read with the contents of Form (Appendix IV) does not admit the interpretation that it is not necessary for the District Magistrate to satisfy himself about the permanent residence of the person seeking domicile certificate. The fact that the District Magistrate has to satisfy himself with regard to the permanent place of abode of a person seeking domicile certificate is made amply clear by Form (Appendix IV); in the second part of the Form the particulars including the place of domicile of the person concerned are to be mentioned alongwith the District and Tehsil in which, such place situates. As has already been pointed out the expression in Form `P-1' means the permanent place of residence of the person concerned and not his temporary or ordinary place of residence. The argument that the permanent place of th,e person concerned need not be ascertained is not tenable because Form `P-I' (Appendix IV) which is referred to in rule 7 does. Stipulate so. Schedules and appendices are as much parts of the Act and are to be read as any other part of an enactment, until and unless, of course, a schedule or appendix is contradictory to the statutory provisions. A reference may be made to page 224 of Book known as "Craies on Statute Law" (Seventh Edition):- "A schedule in an Act is a mere question of drafting, a mere question, of words. The schedule is as much a part of the Statute, and is as much an enactment, as any other part,' but if an enactment in a schedule contradicts an earlier clause the clause prevails against the schedule."
12. It follows from what has been stated above that rule 7 is to be read alongwith Appendix IV and correctness of all the particulars mentioned in Form `P-I' are to be ascertained by the District Magistrate before issuing a domicile certificate. If we accept the argument that the District Magistrate is not bound to inquire into the matters which have not been specifically mentioned in section 5 of the Act and rules 7 then how, the truth of the particulars mentioned in Form `P-I' can be ascertained, specially so when rule 7 itself envisages that domicile certificate should be issued according to the requirements of Form `P-P. Thus, rule 7 cannot be read and interpreted in isolation without considering the contents of Form `P-I' (Appendix IV) because Form `P-I' (Appendix IV) is a part of rule 7
13. The next question which needs determination pertains to the legality of the impugned order of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, dated 20th December, 1983. To appreciate the matter it is necessary to reproduce the letter in which the said order is incorporated :- "No, L-6/34/83-A J K C: To ' Miss Ghosia Basbir, D/o Cb. Basbir Hussain, R/o Mohallah Eidgah, Muzaffarabad (A. K.)
' Subject: Appeal from order of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad passed on 8;11-1983 whereby the application filed by the appellant for grant of domicile certificate has been rejected.
' With reference to her appeal on the above subject filed on 19-11-1983 in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Secretariat. Miss Ghosia Basbir appellant is informed that her appeal has been accepted. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad is being directed to issue Domicile Certificate to the appellant.
(Sd.)
(Q. M. Saeed), Deputy Secretary.
' Copy forwarded to the District Magistrate, Mnzaffarabad with the direction the Appellate Authority having set aside his order, dated 8-11-1983 and having accepted the appeal of Miss Ghosia Bashir she may be issued a Domicile Certificate from Muzaffarabad District, with immediate effect and this Secretariat informed accordingly.
(Sd.)
(Q. M. Saeed)
' Copy is also forwarded to the Secretary, Nomination Board, Azad Jammu and Kashmir government, Muzaffarabad.
(Q. M. Saeed)
Deputy Secretary."
14. It is evident from the abovementioned letter that it does not contain the grounds on which the order of District Magistrate, dated 8-11-1983 was set aside whereby the learned District Magistrate refused to issue domicile certificate to Miss Ghosia Bashir nor it shows as to what were the points involved in the appeal and how the same were resolved. A perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate shows that it is a detailed order which also enumerates grounds on which it was based. After discussing the evidence of the parties the District Magistrate has opined as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} 16.
15. It is evident from the above extract of the order of the District Magistrate that he refused the domicile certificate to the appellant mainly on the ground that she was not a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District; and as such she was not entitled to a domicile certificate showing her as permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District. Thus, the question before the council was not as to whether a District Magistrate can issue a domicile certificate even if the person applying for the same is not permanently residing in his District; rather the issue which was to be resolved by the council was as to whether the findings of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad that Miss Ghosia Bashir was not permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District were correct or not. There is no quarrel with the proposition that under rule 7 any District Magistrate in Azad Kashmir can issue a domicile certificate to a person even if such person is not residing within the territorial limits of his District, but in that case the District Magistrate issuing certificate will have to satisfy himself with regard to all the particulars to be mentioned in Form `P-I' and, of course, he shall also mention the permanent place of residence of a person seeking the domicile certificate against the column {{URDU TEXT}}even if he finds that such place does not situate within the territorial limits of his District. In the instant case it appears that the council while deciding the appeal did not pass any detailed order with reasons showing as to how the conclusion drawn by the District Magistrate on the basis of the inquiry made by him was erroneous. Miss Shamim Ali Malik has averred in para. 6 of the written petition that she applied to the council for the copy of the detailed order, if any, but the game was not provided to her despite her efforts. During the course of arguments we asked the counsel for the parties to furnish the copy of the detailed order passed by the council but they expressed their inability to do so because the council was not prepared to provide the same to them. In the written statement filed on behalf of the council in writ petition, filed by Miss Shamim Ali Malik in para. Ix of the written statement it has been averred that "para. 6 is correct, as far as the copy of judgment is concerned, under rule it cannot be supplied because the same is part of the noting side. The reason mentioned in the written statement for the non-supply of the copy of the judgment is clearly a lame excuse and not tenable under law. Assuming for the sake of arguments: that the judgment passed in appeal forms a part of file which also contained some nothings, there was no reason not to furnish the copy of, the judgment; because the applicant only applied for the copy of the judgment and not for the copy of nothings. It may be observed that the appeal to the council lies under rule 10 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects Rules of 1980. The functions of the council as Appellate Authority are of a quasi-judicial nature and the copy of the judgment or the order passed in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction cannot be refused because that is a part of the file where some noting have also been made by the officials concerned. When an executive authority is invested with judicial or quasi-judicial powers, such powers are to be exercised according to the norms of judicial procedure and any order which is made subject of appeal or revision, as the case may be, is to be disposed of according to the well-settled principle of law, i. e. After hearing the parties, appreciating the evidence on the record and taking into consideration the reasonings advanced by the authority whose order is the subject of appeal or revision. As the council refused to supply the copy of the judgment, if any, we have no alternative but to assumed that the only order passed by the council while disposing of the appeal filed by Miss Ghosia Bashir is contained in the above-referred letter by which Miss Ghosia Bashir was communicated the result of the appeal and the copies of the same were also sent to the Nomination Board and District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad. The directions contained in the letter in terms that Miss Ghosia Bashir may be issued domicile certificate 'from Muzaffarabad District with immediate effect, when read with findings of the District Magistrate, whose order was reversed, can only be interpreted to mean that the appellate authority directed the District Magistrate to issue domicile certificate because in its estimation Miss Ghosia Bashir was a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District and not because that he was competent to do so, irrespective of the fact whether she was a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District or not.
17. It hardly needs any authority that if the order of an appellate authority while disposing of an appeal does not contain reasons on which conclusion of such authority is based that cannot be deemed to be an order at all and that being in clear violation of the norms of judicial or quasi- judicial procedure would be deemed to be without legal authority at and of no legal effect. In the instant case the order incorporated in the aforesaid letter being without any reasons or reference to any evidence on the record is no order in the eye of law. Thus, the order being violative of the norms of judicial principles is unlawful and of no legal consequence.
18. It may be pointed out that on our direction an attested copy of the domicile certificate issued in favour of Miss Ghosia Bashir, by the District Magistrate, was produced in this Court. A perusal of the said certificate shows that the Form on which the certificate was issued does not tally with the prescribed Form as shown in Appendix IV. In the column {{URDU TEXT}}the expression has been incorrectly recorded in the said Form, against which the words written are Obviously, the certificate does not contain the place of domicile of the certificate-holder as required by the relevant Form contained in Appendix IV. Thus, even otherwise the certificate of domicile issued by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad, cannot be relied upon as a proof of the fact that Miss Ghosia Bashir was a permanent resident of Muzaffarabed District and she has foresaken Mirpur District as her permanent place of abode. It may be observed that after going through the relevant documents produced by the parties before the High Court in respect of their respective contentions with regard to the permanent place of abode of Miss Ghosia Bashir, we feel that the material placed before the High Court is insufficient and it has rightly been held by the High Court that the issue cannot be resolved one way or the other in the light of the documentary evidence produced by the parties. In these circumstances we are not in a position to say as to whether Miss Ghosia Bashir is a permanent resident of Muzaffarabad District or that she is a permanent resident of Mirpur District.
So, we leave the matter open to be decided by the competent authority afresh.
' In the light of what has been stated above I partly accept the appeal to the extent indicated above and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and bold that the order of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, dated 20-12-1983 and domicile certificate issued in favour of Miss Ghosia Bashir in pursuance of the said order are without lawful authority and are of no legal consequence. However, Miss Ghosia Bashir, if so advised, may apply afresh to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad or any other District Magistrate for domicile certificate. The District Magistrate concerned, after issuing notices to the contesting parties, shall decide the matter according to law.
' RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN, C. J.-I have had the advantage to go through the proposed judgment prepared by my learned brother Mr. Justice Sardar Said Muhammad Khan. I am in total agreement with the finding on an issues recorded by the learned Judge. However, I propose to make certain observations with regard to finding in respect of rule 7 and Form `P-I' referred to in the order of my learned brother.
It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Judge that appendices and schedules appended with an Act or Rules are part of the Act or Rule and have the same force as the Act or Rules carry unless, of course, the do not go contrary to Act or Rules. Under rule 7, the domicile certificate is to be issued according to Form TT and the application is to be made in accordance with Form 'P'. In the second part of Form `P-I' the place of domicile of the person in whose favour the domicile certificate is to issued is required to be mentioned. In Form `P-I' one finds that immediately before the words {{URDU TEXT}}the ordinary address of the certificate holder is required to be entered. This clearly signifies that the expression {{URDU TEXT}} in Form `P-I' denotes the permanent . Place of residence of the certificate-holder and this is required to be entered after his ordinary place of residence is entered in the Form. The entry against {{URDU TEXT}} is necessary to know the eligibility of the certificate holder from the District he hails vis-a-vis the other candidates of th District.
' It should be remembered that an enactment or rule is to be read and interpreted as a whole. To discover the intention of the author, such Intention is to be gathered from the Act or Rules as a whole. It I settled principle of law that effect is to be given to every part and ever word of the Act or Rules. Therefore, as a general rule the Court should avoid a construction which renders any provision meaningless or inoperative and must lean in favour of a construction which will render every word operative rather than one which may make the same word idle or nugatory. Therefore, while construing an enactment or rule it is the duty of the Court to have regard to the whole instruments to ascertain the true intent and meaning of any particular provision. The particular phrase of an instrument must be construed with regard to the remainder of the, instruments to know the intent of the author.
' In this case in Form `13-1' two features which are relevant for the purpose have to be taken due note of; one being the column meant to show the ordinary place of address and second being where the certificate-holder resides permanently. This is required to be entered against th place of domicile. Obviously, both the aspects have different characteristics and cannot be intermingled or confused. In the first instance the ordinary place of address is to be entered and then for the purpose of his eligibility Q to get a seat from a particular District his permanent place of residence ought to be mentioned. This is the spirit of law which, to me, does not admit of any exception. The argument built up by the learned Judges of the High Court that the word '04 means the ordinary place of residence, therefore, is misconceived and cannot be accepted.
' The word 'domicile' is a derivation of Latin word `domus' meaning a home or a dwelling place; its relationship which in law creates between individual and a particular locality or a country.
' A person shall be said to be domiciled of a locality where he intend to live permanently and considers that place as his principal or permanent home. The 'domicile' of a person, therefore, shall be determined whit taking into account the intention of the person manifested by his conduct to show whether he has adopted a mental attitude to settle down at particular place permanently and make that place as his permanent home. It is correct that a person may leave his country temporarily to make his fortune and in that event the domicile of origin is retained as he never intends to permanently abandon the domicile of origin and make his home permanently in the domicile of choice but where the intention is throughout clearly expressed through conduct or circumstances to have an inference that a person never wished to return to the domicile of origin and has selected the domicile of choice for no other purpose than that of trade, settling thereat permanently and also acquired huge property thereat it shall be said that such person has abandoned his domicile .Of origin for domicile of choice. To have a finding on the point that duration of a person's stay at a place other than that of his domicile of origin, the purpose of his stay thereat, the nature of the business he carries, the quantum of the movable and immovable assets he holds, and his conduct and mental attitude towards his domicile of origin shall provide the guideline and have to be taken into consideration.
' The above observations made to determine the place of a particular person is only for the purposes to give guideline to the District Magistrate, if the question at the instance of Miss Ghosia Bashir is re-opened again. The copy of this Judgment shall be sent to all the District Magistrates with the direction that in future they would issue the domicile certificate in view of the observations made in this judgment. A copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the Chairman, Nomination Board.
ORDER OF THE COURT ' For the view we have taken in the matter we partly accept the appeal to the extent indicated above and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and hold that the order of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, dated 20-12-1983 and domicile certificate issued in favour of Miss Ghosia Bashir in pursuance of the said order are without lawful authority and are of no legal consequence. However, Miss Ghosia Bashir, if so advised, may apply afresh to the District Magistrate for domicile certificate. In that event the District Magistrate concerned, after issuing notices to the contesting parties, shall decide the matter according to law.