Gujarat High Court

Aman Ramesh Panjiyar vs Mamlatdar Office , Surat on 16 October, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/13338/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13338 of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                                    AMAN RAMESH PANJIYAR
                                                           Versus
                                                MAMLATDAR OFFICE , SURAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR MAYANK CHAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                                                        Date : 16/10/2025

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Raajen Jadhav for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mayank Chavda for respondent No.1.

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. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11th July, 2025 passed by the State authorities whereby application

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

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.

4. The facts are not much in dispute, however briefly can be stated as under.

4.1 The petitioner is a resident of State of Gujarat and is residing with his parents in the rented property.

4.2 The petitioner born in the year 2006 at Samastipur, Bihar. Thereafter they shifted to Surat, Gujarat in the year 2011 for labour work. In the year 2011, the father of the petitioner purchased house at Surat and the family was residing in the said ownership property at Surat. However, the petitioner went to study at Haryana from First Standard to Seventh Standard. In the meantime, in 2013, the father residing at Surat, sold the self-owned property and started residing in a rented property. Since then, they are residing in a rented property at Surat. The petitioner, during vacation period in the study outside State of Gujarat, stayed with the parents at Surat and after completing the study till Seventh Standard, the petitioner came back to Surat and got admitted in Gyanjyot Vidyalaya,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

Surat and studied from 2018 to 2023 till Standard Twelve at Surat. Thereafter, from 2023, the petitioner is pursuing his B.A. Degree in Gujarat till today.

4.3 Therefore, his continuous stay is from 2018 till date. At the same time, his father and other family members of the petitioner are continuously residing in Surat continuously from 2011.

4.4 Thereafter, it appears that from 2018 onwards the petitioner returned to State of Gujarat and continued his further studies in the State of Gujarat till today. The petitioner has pursued his studies. The petitioner pursued his study from Standards 8 to 12 from Gyanjyot Vidyalaya, Surat and presently pursuing his studies his B.A. Degree from Veer Narmad South Gujarat University till today.

4.5 The petitioner has cleared examination of Armed Forces (Assam Rifles) and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau and therefore, he required the Certificate of Domicile.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

6. 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?

7. 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 of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.6118 of 2024 decided on 30th July, 2024.

7.1 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

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 :

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

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 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.""

8. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

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 reasonable to consider the said period as break while counting continuous residency for ten years in the State of Gujarat.

9. 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).

10. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 11th July, 2025 is hereby

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/13338/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2025

undefined

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. 17th October, 2025.