' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.-- The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate Nawabshah, dated 26-3-1997 whereby the application for grant of domicile certificate to the six children of the petitioner was rejected by the District Magistrate, Nawabshah primarily on the ground that petitioner and his family had shifted from District, Nawabshah and taken up permanent residence in Hyderabad. Though the matter was listed for Katcha Peshi appearance was made on behalf of the respondents pursuant to the pre-admission notice and parawise comments have also been filed by the respondent No,1, District Magistrate, Nawabshah. We decided with the consent of both the counsel to hear and finally dispose of the petition.
2. Without going into the question whether the finding of fact recorded by the respondent No,1 is correct or otherwise or liable to be interfered within the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, we have noticed the learned District Magistrate, Nawabshah has completely misapplied himself as to the legal requirements for grant of -a domicile certificate. Such certificates are to be granted under the provisions of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1952. It has been clearly held by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as other superior Courts that the domicile of a person relates to the whole country and has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of permanent resident of such person in a District or any particular part of the country. In law there is a basic distinction between the concept of domicile and that one of permanent or ordinary residence inasmuch as the former relates to the status of a person and involves a question of law while the latter is a question of fact.
In the case of Muhammad Yar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner/Political Agent, Loralai and another 1980 SCM R 456 the Honourable Supreme Court has elaborately explained the distinction with reference to the law operating in Pakistan. In para.7 (at p.461) of the judgment their Lordships have observed:--- "(7) Having said this, however, we may as well make it clear that a citizen of Pakistan, in view of the exigencies and the complexities of the present day life, may indeed be genuinely in need of obtaining a domicile certificate but that would only mean that he is the domicile of Pakistan, and not of a Province or a part of Province. It is our experience, however, and the present case would seem to furnish a concrete instance, that in the domicile certificates granted by the District Magistrate the grantee is often mentioned to be the domicile of a particular province or part of the province, which is wholly incorrect."
' The above position is further explained in para.10 (at p.466) of the judgment where their Lordships have observed: "We may as well-mention that there is no legal bar in the way of the petitioner, if he is so minded, to make a fresh application to the District Magistrate, Loralai, for the grant of a domicile certificate, as he is a citizen of Pakistan by birth, having his ancestral home in the District of Dera Ghazi Khan. As to the certificate of 'permanent residence' in the District of Loralai, however, the position is entirely different inasmuch as in the institutions of higher learning of the cowry certain seats have been reserved for the permanent residents of Balochistan and so it would be the burden of the petitioner to prove that he was also permanent resident of that Province or one of its Districts. If the petitioner succeeds to satisfy the authorities in that behalf, we have no doubt that he would succeed in securing a certificate of permanent residence also but that, question lies exclusively in the jurisdiction of the authorities."
3. In view of the above it is clear that respondent No,1 applied wholly irrelevant criteria for refusing domicile certificate to the petitioners children.
4. Mr. Ghulam Shabir Memon learned counsel appearing for the respondents attempted to argue that upon grant of a domicile certificate the petitioner's children would acquire the right to obtain a permanent residence certificate despite the fact that they are not, in fact permanent residents of Nawabshah District in terms of the requirement of the Sindh Permanent Residence Rules. This apprehension in our opinion is misconceived in view of the legal position clearly explained in the above judgment as well as a Division Bench judgment of the Court in the case of Miss Mehrun Nisa Baloch v. Appellate Committee, Karachi and 2 others PLD 1978 Kar. 214 Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J. (as he then was) observed:-- "Now it is clear to me that if the intention was to base the grant of permanent residence certificate on the domicile_ certificate of the applicants' parents it was not necessary to provide for any enquiry by the District Magistrate under Rule 4 to ascertain the place of permanent residence of the applicant. In fact, the said rules need not have come into existence for the domicile certificate of the parents would have been sufficient for the purpose of seeking admission to Medical College in one of the district wise reserved seats. The domicile certificate unlike the permanent residence certificate is not open to challenge by-an aggrieved person. For the grant of a domicile certificate under section 17 of the Citizenship Act all that necessary is that the applicant was ordinarily residing in Pakistan for specified period and has intention to make Pakistan his place of abode and, therefore, the fact that in the prescribed form there is a column of place of domicile appears to be of not much importance. At best it is a piece of evidence in favour of an applicant for permanent residence certificate. It is not conclusive against either the District Magistrate or the Appellate Committee for, under the rules, they are obliged to ascertain for themselves whether a person is a permanent resident of a particular district."
4. In view of above, we would allow this petition to the extent that the order of the respondent No,1, dated 26-3-1997 is set aside and the said respondent is directed to decide the question of grant of domicile in accordance with the requirements of the Pakistan Citizenship Act and Rules and the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. A copy whereof will be communicated to him alongwith this order. We would, however, clarify that in case the petitioner or his children apply for grant of a permanent residence certificate the said application would be decided only after due enquiry in terms of the Sindh Permanent Residence Rules.
5. We have noticed that despite the legal position being clearly settled by the superior Courts several years ago still a confusion appears to exist in minds of officers empowered to issue domicile and permanent residence certificates. A copy of this judgment may, therefore, be sent to the Chief Secretary Government of Sindh to issue appropriate instructions to the concerned officers to relieve citizens from the burden of having to approach the Courts repeatedly in such matters.