The main legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of the UIDAI in verifying and authenticating demographic information provided in Aadhaar applications, and the consequences of providing false demographic information under the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Essentially the writ petitioner has impugned the manner in which the second respondent records data regarding citizens in India under the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 and also the provisions of the (Aadhaar Enrolment and update) Regulation 2018. However, the exact reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner principally are as follows:

(a) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents authorities, each one of them, their men, agents, servants, subordinates and/or assigns to take steps against the private Respondent for offences committed punishable under the Indian Penal Code and under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 and Section 31 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 as per the complaint of the petitioner;

(b) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Certiorari do issue directing the respondents to forthwith transmit all records pertaining to the instant case so that conscionable justice be done;

2. Nothing else has been prayed for in the writ petition for which a Rule Nisi has been sought. Therefore, the writ petition must be considered as being restricted to not merely the above reliefs but to be considered within the four corners under the said statutes.

3. The writ petitioner is a co-owner of the three storied building at 52 B, Kansari Para Road, Kolkata 700025 along with the named persons who have not been made party to the writ petition. The ground floor of the said premises consisting of two rooms, a kitchen and a bath cum privy and a common court yard as described in paragraphs 4 and 3 of the writ petition. In 1969 it was demised in favour of one Dr. Keshab Bhusan Roy since deceased. He was married and resided there with his wife Meenakshi Roy and his only son Bhaskar Roy. His daughter Debjani Bhattacharya (nee Roy), was married and resided else where after marriage since February 1985. The respondent no. 8 had a fortuitous surname which was the same as that of Dr. Roy. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was a domestic help employed by Dr. Roy doing odd jobs in the house and chamber of Dr. Roy. It has been suggested from the Bar that the private respondent was a compounder of the said doctor. On September 24, 2006 the wife of the said doctor expired; on November 3, 2012 the only son of the said doctor expired while living in Netherlands. So, since September, 2006 Dr. Roy used to reside alone at the demised premises.

4. The writ petitioner claims that even after the respondent no. 8 obtained employment in Group D post under the respondent no. 7 he remained with the said doctor and under his employment. Therefore, he also resided with the said doctor. Taking advantage of this residence on the death on January 5, 2015 of the said doctor the private respondent continued in such possession though he had no right to reside there.

5. The writ petitioner has alleged that he and the other co-owners requested him to vacate the demised premises he, however, avoided them on one pretext or the other and remained in possession of the suit property.

6. In or around March 2015 the writ petitioner received summons of the said filed by the private respondent being Title Suit No. 37 of 2015 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th Court at Alipore, district 24 Parganas for declaration and injunction. In the application for the injunction the private respondent is the plaintiff petitioner alleged the following: -

“That thereafter said Dr. Keshab Bhusan Roy the father of the plaintiff died intestate on 05.01.2015 leaving behind him the plaintiff as his son and the daughter-in-law Soma