Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 21851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
R.K Deepak Dharshan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11560 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.T.Sanjay, Shri.Sanil Kumar G., Smt.Afnan Dawood
For the Respondents: Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George, GP
Residency in a state may establish eligibility for a domicile certificate despite birth outside the state.
Headnote:This judgment concerns the denial of a domicile certificate to the petitioner, who was born outside Kerala but claims residency for 17 years in Kerala. The court references precedents Vincy Dinakaran v. State of Kerala and Sohan V.M. v. State of Kerala to argue eligibility for the certificate. Ultimately, the court directs the responsible authority to expeditiously consider the pending appeal regarding the domicile certificate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. denial of domicile certificate. (Para 1) |
| 2. eligibility for domicile despite birth location. (Para 2) |
| 3. pending appeal process acknowledged. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. court's directive for timely decision. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner’s application for a domicile certificate was declined by Ext.P18, pointing out that the petitioner was born outside Kerala. Petitioner challenges the said order.
2. According to the petitioner, he has been residing in Kerala for the last 17 years with his father having been in Palakkad, Kerala, for the last 30 years. Relying upon the decisions of this Court inVincy Dinakaran v. State of Kerala [ 2021(4) KLT 752 ] as well as the decision of this Court in Sohan V.M. v. State of Kerala [ 2026 (1) KHC 394 ], petitioner contends that he is entitled to be issued with a domicile certificate, notwithstanding his birth outside Kerala.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P18 petition, has already preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, which is pending consideration.
5. Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P19 before the 3rd respondent, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P19 appeal, if not disposed of already, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and bearing in mind the propositions of law laid down by this Court inVincy Dinakaran v. State of Kerala (supra) as well as Sohan V.M. v. State of Kerala (supra).
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
