Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 6118 of 2024
Decided On : 30-07-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.R. Thacker, Shivang A. Thacker.
For the Respondent: Ms. Jeenal Acharya, AGP.
IMPORTANT POINT
Domicile requires indefinite residence, not continuous, and periods of study outside the state do not negate residency for domicile purposes.
Headnote:
Domicile - Domicile Certificate - Gujarat Professional Medical Education Course (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 - The court interpreted domicile as a residence that need not be continuous but must be indefinite, influencing the decision to quash the denial of the domicile certificate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a letter denying a domicile certificate based on a brief period of study abroad. The petitioner argued continuous residence in Gujarat, supported by various documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had established sufficient residency in Gujarat, despite a three-year absence for studies abroad, and that the denial of the domicile certificate was unjustified.
Issues: Whether the petitioner met the criteria for obtaining a domicile certificate despite a brief period of residence outside Gujarat.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that domicile does not require continuous residence but must be indefinite, and the absence for education should not negate the established residency.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to issue the domicile certificate.
ORDER :
Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.
1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 17.10.2023 issued by the respondent no.2, i.e. Mamlatdar. Vide said letter, the Mamlatdar has refused to issue Domicile Certificate, on the sole ground that, the petitioner, for the period from 2013 to 2016, has undertaken his studies in Abu Dhabi.
2. Mr Shivang Thacker, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to page 21 of the captioned writ petition, submitted that the place of birth of the petitioner is New Delhi; the reason for shifting Delhi, was the health of the mother of the petitioner, as she has suffered a paralytic attack; however, the petitioner returned with his parents to Ahmedabad within two months. Since 2006, that is, immediately after the birth on 23.01.2006, the petitioner has been residing at Baroda with his parents, which fact, is strengthened by the passport applied and issued by the passport authority. It indicates the place of issuance, as Ahmedabad and the period is from 02.01.2007 to 01.01.2012. The passport was renewed for the period from 2016 to 2021, similarly, indicating the place of issuance as Ahmedabad and with address of Baroda.
2.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner has studied from Junior K.G. to Std. II at Baroda. For brief period of three years, the petitioner was away; however, thereafter, from standard VI to XII, the petitioner has studied in the State. There is no dispute inasmuch as, the school certificates, the documents, substantiate that the petitioner has undergone his studies in the schools at Baroda, namely, pre-school in Dreams Play School, Vadodara; senior class in Navrachana Vidyani Pre-primary School, Essar International School, Gujarat Public School, Vadodara; so on and so forth. It is submitted that therefore, there are sufficient documents to suggest that the petitioner has stayed in the State of Gujarat except for three years, i.e. for the period from 2013 to 2016.
2.2 It is further submtted that the father of the petitioner is having movable and immovable properties, being Tenement no.A/10 in Baroda. The parents have jointly purchased two residential houses in the year 2011 and 2012 and a commercial property in the year 2016. Though, the father of the petitioner was born in the State of Bihar; has joined service with L & T Ltd. and got married in Gujarat in 2000. Whereas, the mother of the petitioner was born outside the State but is possessing Domicile Certificate of State of the year 2000.
2.3 It is therefore, submitted that the authorities have wrongly denied the Domicile Certificate to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner, is entitled for the benefits of the policy of the State Government including the clarification issued by the Home Department to the Commissioner of Police dated 05.09.2009. It is further submitted that all these aspects have not been considered by the respondent no.3 and the order has been passed, refusing the domicile certificate to the petitioner.
2.4 Reliance is placed on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Muskan Sunilkant Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-HC 239722. It is submitted that the petitioner is identically placed to the petitioners of the said petitions. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court has held that the only interpretation that can be given to the term ‘domicile’ as contained in the Rules, is residence of particular kind, which need not be continuous, but must be indefinite not purely fleeting.
2.5 It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has been residing at Vadodara since birth except a brief period of three years, the petitioner and his parents are residing at Vadodara only. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner for domicile certificate, is contrary to law and requires to be quashed and set aside.
3. Ms Jeenal Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the entire p
