Gujarat High Court
Kavin Shrichand Jakhar vs State Of Gujarat on 18 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9769 of 2025
==========================================================
KAVIN SHRICHAND JAKHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RASHESH A RINDANI(5380) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MAYANK CHAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS MANISHA SHAH, AAG WITH MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the
Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 18/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rashesh Rindani for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Ms.Manisha Shah with learned advocate Mr.K.M. Antani for respondent No.5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mayank Chavda for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Since the issue involved in the present petition is narrow in compass and no more res integra, with the request and consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
3. Hence, issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mayank Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined Chavda and learned advocate Mr.K.M. Antani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
4. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11th July, 2025 passed by the State authorities whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking Domicile Certificate came to be rejected on the ground of non-continuous residence of ten years in the State of Gujarat.
5. The facts are not much in dispute, however briefly can be stated as under.
5.1 The petitioner is a resident of State of Gujarat and is residing with his parents in the property owned by his parents.
5.2 Father of the petitioner is a Scientist in the Institute for Plasma Research which is a creation of Central Government under the authority of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. Father of the petitioner joined the said institute in the year 2002 and since then his family has been residing in the State of Gujarat. Although the petitioner was born in the year 2007 at Rajasthan, however as the father and his family settled in the State of Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined Gujarat since 2002, he also started residing in the State of Gujarat along with his parents. Thereafter, he studied at Podar School, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad for the period between 2010-11 and 2013-14.
5.3 Thereafter, father of the petitioner got work at ITER Organisation (IO), Cadarache, France on deputation. Thus, along with the father, petitioner also moved to France and there he studied for the period 2013-14 to 2018.
5.4 Thereafter, it appears that from 2018 onwards the petitioner returned to State of Gujarat and continued his further studies in the State of Gujarat until 15th May, 2023 in Delhi Public School, Gandhinagar. The petitioner pursued his study in the Standards 11 and 12 from Shree Swaminarayan Gurukul, Zundal, Gandhinagar for the period 20th June, 2023 to 31st March, 2025.
5.5 Since the petitioner wants to pursue his career in medical field, he applied for NEET examination and secured reasonable marks so as to get admission in the college within the State of Gujarat under the category of resident of State of Gujarat.
5.6 Accordingly, an application was moved to Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined the competent authority. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 27th February, 2025, against which an Appeal was preferred and the same was allowed by remanding the proceedings back to the first authority. Upon remand, by the impugned order, authority has rejected the application on the ground that continuous period of ten years' residency in the State of Gujarat is not complete.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition.
7. Considering the above facts which are not much in dispute, the only question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, can be denied Domicile Certificate on the ground of not completing ten years' continuous residency in the State of Gujarat?
8. The aforesaid question is no more res integra. The issue in question is settled by this Court in the case of Muskan Sunilkant Tiwari v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.17426 of 2018 and allied matters decided vide judgment dated 05th December, 2018 as well as in the case of Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra v. State Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.6118 of 2024 decided on 30th July, 2024.
8.1 Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Muskan Sunilkant Tiwari (supra) thus has held as under.
"27. The concept of one's domicile has a definite implication and is directly linked with the situs of one's residence. The term in its ordinary acceptation means, a place where a person lives or has his home. It is a place where a person has his actual residence, inhabitancy or commorancy.
28. Domicile as a concept is of immense importance, both in municipal law as well as in Private International Law or the conflicts of laws, as it is called. The concept denotes 'the place of living', or more precisely a permanent residence. Domicile as pointed in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 8, Paragraph 421 'is the legal relationship between an individual and a territory with a distinctive legal system which invokes that system as his personal law.' Although the notion which lies behind the concept of domicile is of 'permanent residence' or a 'permanent home', yet domicile is primarily a legal concept for the purposes of determining what is the 'personal law' applicable to an individual and therefore, even if an individual has no permanent residence or permanent home, even then he is invested with a 'domicile' albeit by law or implication of law. There are three main categories or classes of domicile, A) Domicile of Origin, B) Domicile of Choice, and C) Domicile by law. 'Domicile of origin' is the domicile which each person Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined has at birth i.e. the domicile of his father or his mother. 'Domicile of choice' is the domicile which a person of full age is free to acquire in substitution for that which he presently possesses. In other words, the 'domicile of origin' is what is attached to person by birth whereas the domicile of choice is what is acquired by residence in a territory subject to a distinctive legal system with the intention to reside there permanently or indefinitely. What should be always remembered is that a domicile denotes an area with a separate and distinctive legal system and not just a particular place in a country. This aspect is elaborated in paragraph 442 of Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 8, which states as under :
"Even person who has, or whom the law deems to have, his permanent home within the territorial limit of a single system of law is domiciled in the country over, which is the whole of that country even though his home may be fixed at a particular spot within it."
41. The only interpretation that can be given to the term 'domicile' as contained in the rules is residence of a particular kind. This residence, however, need not be continuous but it must be indefinite not purely fleeting. It is difficult to lay down an absolute definition of the word 'domicile'. Even the State Government, while amending the rules and introducing the concept of domicile, understood the same to be a resident within the State of Gujarat. One of the earliest and yet the simplest definitions of this expression was attempted by Chitty J. in Craignish v. Craignish, (1892)3 Ch. 180, at p.192(a) in the following terms :
Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined "That place is properly the domicile of a person in which his habitation is fixed without any present intention of removing therefrom."
42. However, it is the Administrative Instructions of 8th June 1989 issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government to all the District Magistrates and the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, that triggered the controversy. A close reading of the said Administrative Instructions would indicate that it talks about continuous stay within the State of Gujarat for a period of ten years.
43. Ms.Shah, the learned Government Pleader, pointed out that Shruti Pankaj Singh was born at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, and studied upto Standard-II at Navi Mumbai and thereafter from 2009 she studied at Vadodara. She was admitted in Standard-IV in the year 2009. Despite such factual position, in her application dated 7th June 2018 seeking domicile certificate, she has stated that she is residing in the State of Gujarat for last twelve years. In the same way, in the case of Astha Dipak Tripathi, she was born at Pune, Maharashtra. She studied from Standard-I to IV at Pune and then from 2009 onwards, i.e. from Standard- V, she studied at Vadodara till the last. However, in her application, she has stated that she is residing in the State of Gujarat for last thirteen years. In the case of Vikalp Devendra Panchal, he was born at Nalasopara, State of Maharashtra. Upto Standard-VII he studied at Thane and thereafter from Standard- VIII, he started studying at Vadodara. However, in the application, he has stated that he is residing in the State of Gujarat for last fifteen years. In the case of Muskan, she was born at Alwar, Rajasthan, and studied upto Standard-VIII at Bhatinda, Punjab, and Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined thereafter from Standard-IX, she started studying at Bharuch. In her case, it is pointed out that she not remained present for verification.
44. It appears from the submissions of Ms.Shah that according to the State Government, the students did not study continuously for a period of ten years in the State of Gujarat. The parents of each of the writ-applicants might be residing within the State of Gujarat past more than ten years but the requirement, according to the State Government, is continuous study for ten years within the State of Gujarat.
"47. The final conclusion may be summarised as under :
(1) Rule 4(1-A) of the Amendment Rules, 2018, merely provides that the candidate/student must be 'domicile of Gujarat State'. The said rule does not define the term 'domicile' or 'domicile of Gujarat State'.
(2) Rule 4(1-A) does not provide that only those candidates/students who establish 'minimum continuous stay of ten years in the State of Gujarat at the time of application' can be considered eligible for the 'domicile of Gujarat State'.
(3) The only interpretation that can be given to the term 'domicile' as contained in the rules is residence of a particular kind. This residence, however, need not be continuous but it must be indefinite not purely fleeting.
(4) Rule 4(1-A) does not provide or postulate the condition or requirement that the student must adduce necessary evidence to establish minimum continuous stay of ten Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined years in Gujarat. The rule does not prescribe or postulate any other or further or additional requirement or condition for acquiring status as 'domicile of Gujarat'.
(5) When any other requirement is not prescribed by the rules, then such requirement cannot be introduced by the State by way of a letter or even a circular.
(6) Merely because a student shifts himself outside the State of Gujarat for few years to pursue his studies in a school outside the State of Gujarat as a boarding student and returns to the State of his permanent residence and starts residing with his parents and also pursues further education (Standard-IX to XII), then in such circumstances the period for which he remained outside the State of Gujarat his studies as a boarding student cannot be excluded while computing 'minimum continuous stay of ten years in Gujarat State'.
(7) The materials on record indicate that the parents of all the four writ-applicants are residing in the State of Gujarat past more than ten years and thereby it could be said that they have declared their intention to settle in the State of Gujarat atleast for the present, if not for all times to come. The materials do further indicate and it is not in dispute that the four writapplicants have studied in the State of Gujarat from Standard-V onwards upto Standard- XII.
(8) The domicile certificates which were already issued in favour of the writ-
applicants should not have been cancelled relying on the Administrative Instructions of 8th June 1989 issued by the General Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined Administration Department of the State Government.
(9) The case on hand is not one of adopting unfair means or any malpractice in obtaining the domicile certificates. The domicile certificates were issued to each of the writ applicants after proper inquiry having regard to the information furnished by the writ-applicants.""
9. While keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, if the facts of the present case are considered, then it would reveal that admittedly the petitioner has studied in the State of Gujarat for almost 11 years. However, in the interregnum period, because of his father's deputation at France, petitioner had to go out of State of Gujarat for four years along with his parents and that is how the break has been created. The coordinate Bench of this Court has already considered that if student goes out of State of Gujarat for few years to pursue his study and returns to the State of his permanent residency and pursue further education, in that event, the period for which the student remained outside the State of Gujarat, cannot be excluded while computing minimum continuous stay of ten years in the State of Gujarat. Thus, the petitioner of the present case had to go out of State of Gujarat because of service of his father for certain period and thereby it would not be Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9769/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined reasonable to consider the said period as break while counting continuous residency for ten years in the State of Gujarat.
10. Accordingly, this Court, in absence of any distinguishable facts, would not be able to take a different view than that of taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Muskan Sunilkant Tiwari (supra) and Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra (supra).
11. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 11th July, 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The authority concerned is hereby directed to issue Domicile Certificate to the petitioner immediately, preferably by 09.00 p.m. today or not later than 10.00 am tomorrow i.e. 19th July, 2025.
Direct service is permitted, today.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:27:20 IST 2025