Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
S.R. SEN, J.
Shri Rabbe Alam - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
WP(C). No. 203 of 2016
Decided On : 05-12-2016
Domicile Certificate - Issuance - The court set aside a notification and application form related to the issuance of domicile certificates, emphasizing that every citizen of India has the right to settle or reside in any part of the country. The court directed that the process of obtaining a domicile certificate should be hassle-free and completed within one week, with specific requirements for verification and documentation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, from a poor family, applied for a domicile certificate to join the para-military force. The application was delayed due to the requirement of submitting an Election Photo Identity Card of the petitioner's mother, who resided in a different state for voting purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification and application form for domicile certificates did not prescribe any rule or requirement, and the government had no business issuing domicile certificates only to those applying to the armed forces. The court emphasized that every citizen of India has the right to settle or reside in any part of the country.
Issues: The issues revolved around the unnecessary requirements for obtaining a domicile certificate, the delay in the process, and the legality of the notification and application form.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the process of obtaining a domicile certificate should be hassle-free and completed within one week, with specific requirements for verification and documentation. It also highlighted that a citizen is a domicile either by birth or by choice, and no one can hold two domicile certificates at a time.
Final Decision: The court set aside the notification and application form related to the issuance of domicile certificates and directed the state to strictly comply with the judgment and order with immediate effect.
JUDGMENT :
S.R. SEN, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. K.Barua, learned State counsel on behalf of the State respondents.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:
"The petitioner who hails from a very poor family decided to join para-military force after completing S.S.L.C. Examination in the year 2014 and accordingly submitted an application for issuance of Domicile Certificate along with relevant documents to the competent authority and as per procedure, the Petitioner's Application was sent for required verification and there was no adverse comment against the Petitioner, thereby giving rise to hope that the Petitioner would get the Domicile Certificate but to the surprise of the Petitioner, he was asked to submit the Election Photo Identity Card of his mother showing her as an electoral from Shillong Constituency but the Petitioner whose mother is originally from Bihar and is a voter there and comes to Shillong only for drawing family pension of Petitioner's father and producing of Election Photo Identity Card of his mother in Shillong is legally not possible but the Respondent No.2 refused to entertain the Application of the Petitioner on flimsy ground.
Hence this petition."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that due to refusal or delay of granting domicile certificate by the Government, young people specially those who are seeking jobs are suffering immensely. He further submits that whenever anybody applies for a domicile certificate, they are asked to submit so many documents which are not at all necessary for granting the domicile certificate. He also pointed out that for collecting the domicile certificate, one needs to run hundred times to the Deputy Commissioner's office which is pure harassment, so necessary direction may be issued.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State respondents, Mr. K. Barua submits that the Deputy Commissioner's office are trying their best to provide the domicile certificate to deserving applicants and has also set up E-Service. He also pointed out that Notification No. POL.97/74/Pt-I/199 dated 4th September, 2013 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Political Department mentions a set of standardized application form and certificate format to be filled up by the applicants which are at page 5 to 8 of the affidavit filed by the State respondents.
5. After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and after going through the Notification No. POL.97/74/Pt-I/199 dated 4th September, 2013 and the application form and certificate format quoted above, I find that the Notification, application form and certificate format has not prescribed any rule or requirement to issue the domicile certificate. Moreover, the Notification No. POL.97/74/Pt-I/199 dated 4th September, 2013 is neither an Act nor a Rule, it is a mere executive order. Government has no business to issue domicile certificate only to those persons who are applying to the armed forces. I would like to ask the Government, "whether a person applying for domicile certificate does not have right to apply for any other civilian service?" The answer is definitely "yes they can apply for other civilian services too." However, since the reservation matter is not before me now, I am not going to discuss the matter elaborately. Since this Notification No. POL.97/74/Pt-I/199 dated 4th September, 2013 and the application form and certificate format is not in accordance with law, it needs to be set aside and accordingly I hereby set aside both the Notification No. POL.97/74/Pt-I/199 dated 4th September, 2013 as well as the application form and the certificate format quoted above.
6. We all know that India is one country and one nation and every citizen of India has a right to settle or reside in any part of the country, nobody can deny that. In that sense a citizen is a domicile either by birth or by cho
AI
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
