IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Before : Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Mr.
Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui
C.P. No.
D-182 of 2017
Mst.
Naheed
..
...
..Petitioner
Versus
Federation
of Pakistan and others
..
.Respondents
Date
of Hearing : 09.02.2017
Mr. Qadir Hussain Khan, advocate for the petitioner
Ch. Muhammad Farooq and Ms.Sameena Iqbal, advocates for
NADRA
Mr. Muhammad Jawaid K.K., Standing Counsel
J U D G M E N T
.-.-.-.-.-.
FAHIM
AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Through
instant petition, the petitioner is seeking direction of this Court against the
respondents (NADRA) for issuance of her CNIC in her name as mentioned in the
title of the petition. After issuance of notice to the respondents, a statement
on their behalf was filed which is reproduced as under:-
It is respectfully submitted that as per report of
Operation Branch RHO NADRA Karachi. The petitioner obtained two CNICs bearing
No. 42401-1804061-2 and 42401-38366590 with different particulars and father
name status. The DUP cases having same particulars may be processed for
cancellation of one CNIC as per policy.
While, the DUP cases pertains to different particulars may be dealt as
per Court instructions / order. Her name has never approached NADRA for
processing for her CNIC. The petitioner will treat as per law and policy in
case of further application for processing of CNIC. (The copy of Operation
Branch report is annexued as A).
Therefore, the subject petition may graciously be
disposed of with appropriate directions, accordingly.
2. Heard the arguments. Perused the record. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an uneducated woman and she
got issued two CNIC by NADRA as she was unaware that only one CNIC can be held
by her. He further submitted that after marriage, she succeeded in getting CNIC
with the name of her husband but after divorce, she applied for another CNIC
and got another CNIC with her fathers name.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/NADRA submitted that
when the petitioner tried to get her CNIC renewed, her case was detected as duplicate
issuance of CNIC as such one of them is required to be cancelled after proper
verification. According to him, the problem is that the entire particulars of
both the CNICs are different, therefore, the matter requires detailed inquiry.
In response to a query, he submitted that after biometric checking, it was
found that both CNICs were issued to one and the same person i.e., petitioner.
4. After hearing the arguments, we have also noticed that in one CNIC No.42401-1804061-2,
name of the petitioner is mentioned as Naheed
wife of Azad Alam with the year of
birth as 1969 while in other CNIC No.42401-3836659-0, her name is
mentioned as Maimoona Khatoon daughter of Abdul Wahab with the date of
birth as 01.01.1965. In both the CNICs, house numbers are also different but
area and locality are same. Under these circumstances, the contention of counsel
for NADRA regarding detailed inquiry appears to be correct.
5. Accordingly, by consent, instant petition is disposed of with
direction to the respondents that they should conduct a proper inquiry upto
their satisfaction regarding particulars of the petitioner before issuing CNIC
to her. The respondents shall have to complete the process of cancellation and
issuance of fresh CNIC according to her true and correct particulars within a
period of three (03) months. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate with
the respondents in this regard.
JUDGE
JUDGE