1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.---This Constitution Petition challenges an order dated 9-7-1990 passed by the District Magistrate Badin, cancelling PRC (Permanent Residence Certificate) issued to petitioner No,2, Muhammad All Siddiqui and the Domicile Certificate and PRC issued to petitioner No,1 Abdul Sattar Siddiqui.
2. ' Admittedly petitioner No,2 Muhammad All Siddiqui obtained admission in First Year M.B.B.S. Class of Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro for the year 1990-91 on the basis of a Domicile Certificate issued by District Magistrate, Badin to the petitioner No,1 on 19-12-1989 and a PRC issued to the petitioner No,2 by the District Magistrate, Badin on 6-1-1990.
3. ' Three persons namely Mukhtar Ali, Faiz Muhammad and Miss Zegham Zehra moved applications to the District Magistrate Badin alleging that the petitioner No,1 had obtained for himself Domicile Certificate and for petitioner No,2 PRC, through fraud and misrepresentation. The District Magistrate after hearing the said applicants as well as the present petitioners and after examining the evidence and thorough consideration of the facts, came to the conclusion that the petitioners had obtained the Domicile Certificate and the PRC through misrepresentation and fraud. Consequently he cancelled both the certificates under the impugned order. Hence this petition.
4. ' Mr.S.H.Hashmi, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the District Magistrate was not vested with powers of review and as such he had no jurisdiction or lawful authority to cancel the Domicile Certificate issued in the name of petitioner Abdul Sattar or the Permanent Resident Certificate issued in the name of petitioner Muhammad Ali. It was next argued that person aggrieved by issue of Domicile Certificate in the name of petitioner Abdul Sattar had no right to challenge the same and a person aggrieved by issue of PRC in name of petitioner Muhammad All can challenge the same only by filing an appeal under Rule .8 of Sindh PRC Rules, 1971 before the Appellate Committee set up for the purpose. It was also argued that the Domicile Certificate in the name of Abdul Sattar and Permanent Resident Certificate in the name of Muhammad All Siddiqui were issued on 19-12-1989 and 6-1-1990 respectively by the then District Magistrate Badin after being fully satisfied about justification for issue of such certificates and the same cannot be cancelled by the present incumbent' of the same post. It was next argued that the District Magistrate who cancelled the domicile certificate and the PRC had ignored the evidence viz. National Identity Card in the name of petitioner No,1, electoral roll certificate issued by the election office Badin, report of the Supervising Tapedar and the residence certificate issued by the Chairman Municipal Committee, Matli. It was contended that holder of a Certificate of Domicile issued under Rule, 23 of Pakistan Citizenship Rules 1952 can be deprived of such certificate only by the Federal Government under rule 25 of said Rules and not by a District Magistrate. In support learned counsel for the petitioners cited the cases of:
(i) Millat Sultan v. The District Magistrate, Sanghar and others (1984 CLC 1862).
(ii) Muhammad Ashfaq v. Selection Committee for Engineering Seats etc. 1982 CLC 2383(2).
(iii) Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt.) Limited v. Central Board of Revenue and others (1987 M LD 505).
(iv) Miss Mehrun Nissa Baloch v. Appellate Committee, Karachi and others (PLD 1978 Kar.214).
5. ' Mr. Jhamat Jathanand learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 on whose applications the Domicile Certificate and the PRC were cancelled by the District Magistrate, Badin, argued that the petitioner No,1 had obtained the Domicile Certificate in his name and the PRC in name of his son by fraud and misrepresentation of facts and as such the District Magistrate was competent to cancel the two certificates. Learned counsel referred to the electoral roll of Unit No,15 Municipal Area Matli which contained 241 names with no name of the petitioner No,1 and argued that the extract produced by the petitioners from the electoral roll showed that name of the petitioner No,1 was mentioned in the electoral roll at serial No,242 and that this was manipulation. Learned counsel for the private respondents referred to the questionnaire form for Domicile Certificate, where the petitioner No,2 is shown to be residing at Matli since his birth, although admittedly petitioner No,2 was not born at Matli as he was residing at Latifabad, Hyderabad and had taken education at Hyderabad. The two certificates issued by the Chairman Municipal Committee Matli on 30-6-1990 and on 3-3-1989 were criticized as in one certificate the petitioner No,1 is shown to be resident of Matli since his forefathers while in the other one he is shown to be resident of Matli since birth. It was further argued that petitioner No,1 Abdul Sattar had obtained two National Identity Cards, one of which was having his signature and another one was having his thumb-mark. It was added that in the letter dated 28-12-1989 from the Assistant Commissioner Matli to the District Magistrate, Badin, it was mentioned that petitioner No,2 Muhammad Ali Siddiqui had taken education at Nindo Shahar, Taluka Badin but no school certificate was produced. Learned counsel for private respondents was of the view that fraud vitiates all the proceedings and that in this particular case the petitioner No,1 had made admissions before the District Magistrate, Badin on the basis of which the domicile certificate and the PRC were cancelled. Learned counsel wanted Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971 to be read together. Relying on Rule 6(i) of the said Rules, learned counsel contended that petitioner No,2 was not eligible for grant of PRC as he was not born in any area of District Badin forming a part of Sindh. Lastly it was argued that the petitioners had come to this Court with unclean hands and as such they were not entitled to any relief. In support learned counsel for the private respondents cited the cases of:
(i) Pakistan v. Shaikh Abdul Hamid (PLD 1%1 S.C.105).
(ii) Miss Meherun Nissa Baloch v. Appellate Committee, Karachi and others (PLD 1978 Kar.214).
(iii) Miss Meherun Nisa Baloch v. Appellate Committee and others (1978 SCM R 439).
(iv) Miss Samina Nighat v. PRC Appellate Tribunal and others (PLD 1983 Kar.324).
(v) Miss Rahila Mumtaz v. Commissioner and another (1985 SCM R 1286).
(vi) Taj Muhammad v. Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and others (1979 CLC 237).
(vii) Khalid Sher v. Principal and Chairman, Academic Council Selection Board and others (PLD 1987 Kar.255).
6. (viii)Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331).
(ix) Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236).
(x) Miss Faryal Wali v. District Magistrate and others (1981 Law Notes 4).
7. ' Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari learned AAG appearing for official respondents argued that District Magistrate had powers under Rule 23 of Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952 to issue a certificate of domicile in Form `P-I' and that for issue of such certificate, he 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 Pakistan for a period not less than one year and he intends to live permanently in Pakistan, as per clause (b) of Rule 23. In this particular case, learned AAG. Referred to one of the two affidavits sworn on 7-12-1989 by petitioner No,1 Abdul Sattar for obtaining the domicile certificate- In one of his supporting affidavits sworn on 7-12-1989, the petitioner No,1 stated that he was uneducated, although the petitioner was a Law Graduate having practised law at Hyderabad. Learned AAG further argued that the only document on the basis of which the domicile certificate was issued, was a certificate by the local Chairman which was subsequently cancelled. Learned AAG also referred to the questionnaire for domicile certificate which bears thumb mark of the petitioner No,1 and in which no house number is given. It was added that even the affidavit of petitioner No,1 contains his thumb mark. Learned AAG adopted arguments of Mr. Jhamat Advocate on remaining points and was of the view that by fraud and misrepresentation of facts a domicile certificate was obtained by the petitioner No,1 and a Permanent Residence Certificate was obtained by the petitioner No,2 and that sufficient material was available before the D.M. Badin for cancellation of the two certificates.
8. ' During the course of hearing of the Constitution petition, petitioner No,2 was present in person and in reply to a Court question he stated that he had taken education in Jack and Jill School, Hyderabad. He did not state if he took education in Village Nindo of District Badin. No explanation has been given, as to why the petitioner No,1 felt necessity of having two Identity Cards, one of Hyderabad District (copy Annex. R-1) containing his signature and another of Badin District (copy Annex. R-2) containing his thumb mark. Photo copies Annexs. R-1 and R-2 have been produced with counter-affidavit of respondent No,4 Faiz Muhammad. For exercising the power of cancelling the Permanent Residence Certificate the District Magistrate, Badin has relied upon a Circular Letter dated 23-104985 issued by the Government of Sindh in the Home Department authorising the District Magistrates in Sindh to cancel a Permanent Residence Certificate if it was issued on practising fraud. Said letter is based on the observations made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331 (345). Besides this, section 21 of the General Clauses Act authorises cancellation of a certificate by the authority which has issued the same.
9. ' The authorities cited at the bar do not help the petitioneRs, In the case of Miss Mehrun Nissa Baloch (PLD 1978 Kar.214), it was held that if the intention was to base the grant of permanent residence certificate on the domicile certificate of the applicant's parents, it was not necessary to provide for any enquiry by the District Magistrate under Rule 4 of Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971 to ascertain the place of permanent residence of the applicant and that had the domicile certificate of the parents been sufficient for the purpose of seeking admission to a medical college in one of the district wise reserved seats, said Rules of 1971 need not have come into existence. This authority highlights holding of an enquiry by the District Magistrate to ascertain the place of permanent residence of a person in spite of such person possessing domicile certificate of his father. Said judgment (PLD 1978 Kar. 214) was maintained by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported in 1978 SCM R 439, where it was held that even if a person is a permanent resident of a district of Sindh he is not entitled to a Permanent Residence Certificate unless he can bring his case under the Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, which curtail and are intended to curtail the powers conferred on the District Magistrates under Rule 4. In the case of Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987 M LD 505), the view taken was that review is not a vested right, as such no one has a right of seeking review unless such right is enforced by law. This was in respect of an order under Excise Duty (Production Capacity of Sugar) Rules, 1972, whereby the C.B.R. With prior approval of the Federal Government had passed an order by which whole claim for abatement in Central Exicse Duty was disallowed but partial abatement was allowed. Such order, as held, was not open to review by C.B.R. This was not the position in the instant case. In the case of Muhammad Ashfaq (1982 CLC 238 (2)), the view taken was that simply because a person is in possession of local or domicile certificate, does not entitle him to the Permanent Residence Certificate, if otherwise it is established that such person is not resident of the District or he has abandoned that District for good and has no connection whatsoever with the area from which he had procured local or domicile certificate. In the case of Millet Sultan (1984 CLC 1862), the observations made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst.Mehrun Nissa (1978 SCM R 439) were referred and the view expressed was that in the said case it was nowhere laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that an applicant, in order to be eligible to PRC for a particular District, should have been born in that District, nor there are observations with respect to interpretation of clause (1) of Rule 6 of Sindh Permanent Residence Rules.
10. ' In view of the above discussion on facts and on law, we are clear in our mind that the petitioners have no case either on facts or in law or in equity and consequently we decline to invoke our Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter and dismiss this petition.