IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, H.S. THANGKHIEW, JJ.
State Of Meghalaya And Others — Appellant
Versus
Amon Rana And Others — Respondent
WA No. 3 of 2019
Decided on : 24-05-2019
Judgment - WP(C) No.448 of 2018 - [Citizenship Act, Notifications, Judicial Review] - The court discussed the issue of domicile certificate and permanent certificate, the validity of certain notifications, and the need for legislation to safeguard the interest of certain religious and ethnic groups. The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles of judicial review, constitutional principles, and the need for adherence to pleadings and issues raised in the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner applied for a domicile certificate for recruitment in the armed forces, which was delayed due to issues with the birth certificate. The court found that the delay was unnecessary and the provisional certificate issued to the petitioner should be treated as final.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the judgment legally flawed and inconsistent with constitutional principles, setting it aside in its entirety.
Issues: The court addressed the delay in issuing the domicile certificate, the validity of certain notifications, and the need for legislation to safeguard the interest of specific religious and ethnic groups.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need for adherence to pleadings and issues raised in the writ petition, the principles of judicial review, and the importance of upholding constitutional principles.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the provisional certificate issued to the petitioner was treated as final. The appeal succeeded and was disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
By medium of this appeal, judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed in WP (C) No.448 of 2018 captioned "Shri Amon Rana v. State of Meghalaya & ors, has been assailed on numerous grounds as enumerated in para-8 of the memo of appeal.
2. It was brought to the notice of the Court that in view of the observations made and directions passed in the judgment impugned regarding matters which were not issues in the writ petition, SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court with the following prayer:-
(b) Pass ad interim ex-parte relief in terms of prayer (a);
(c) Pass such other of further orders as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Pendency of SLP with aforesaid prayer in our humble opinion will not operate as a bar for deciding the instant appeal as is also submitted by learned counsel for the parties, more so Hon’ble Judge against whom aforesaid relief has been sought on reaching superannuation has retired.
4. Learned Advocate General while projecting the case for reversal of the judgment impugned has placed reliance on various judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court to be quoted while considering his contentions herein below.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.1 had applied for certificate required to be produced for recruitment in armed force, before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong (appellant herein), but was dragged continuously. Appointment of petitioner vide appointment order dated 11.08.2018 was subject to the production of said certificate and other documents. Faced with uncertainty due to in action on the part of the appellant was constrained to file writ petitions. Provisional certificate has been granted same may be treated as final.
6. Learned ASG had produced a communication addressed to her by the Deputy Secretary where-under she has been asked to seek three weeks time for filing reply. Since the submissions on behalf of Advocate General appearing for the appellants and of learned counsel for respondent No.1 were concluded on 20.05.2019, therefore, she made a submission that the issue of domicile certificate is a larger issue requires proper adjudication, therefore, the case may be remanded so that writ petition is a fresh decided.
7. The submission of learned ASG that she is under instructions to seek three weeks time to file reply is totally misplaced. Firstly, respondents No.2 and 3 were not the party to the main petition they were arrayed as party respondents No.2 and 3 by learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.11.2018 on their behalf no reply or counter affidavit was filed as against the writ petition. Her submission has been recorded in the judgment impugned which reads as under:-
8. The contention of learned ASG that grant of domicile certificate is a larger issue and has to be consistent with the Citizenship Act and matter is not a State subject, runs contrary to her submission as she has made before learned Single Judge. That apart, according to her, Notification dated 13.01.1995 as has been quashed was required to be quashed. But that submission is without any substance because that Notification dated 13.01.1995 issued by the Government of Meghalaya, Political Department provides that Permanent Residence Certificate/Domicile Certificate should not be issued in case of candidates wishing to join arm
Himachal Pradesh and ors Vs. Satpal Saini
K. Vasudevan Vs. Mohan N. Mali and ors
Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerela
Mallikarjuna Rao and ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors
Narender Chand Hem Raj Vs. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh
Om Prakash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan and ors
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of Bombay
Secretary to the Govt. and anr Vs. M. Senthil Kumar
State of Andhra Pradesh and anr Vs. K. Jayaraman and ors
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla
State of J&K Vs. A.R. Zakki 1992 Supp 1 SCC 548 : (1992) SCC L&S 427: AIR 1992 SC 1546
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. Vs. Union of India
Union of India Vs. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.