Through: Shri Vivek Pathak vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2879 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
             AT NAINITAL
                  Writ Petition (MS) No. 1019 of 2022

Suman.                                               ................Petitioner.

                                   Through: Shri Vivek Pathak, learned counsel
                                   for the petitioner.


                                 -Versus-
State of Uttarakhand
and another.                                           .........Respondents.
                                   Through: Shri Pradeep Hairiya, learned
                                   Standing Counsel for the State / respondents.


            Date of hearing and judgment : 09.09.2022

Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2 (downloaded from the website of edistrict.uk.gov.in) whereby application UK13CAA04041210069938 of the petitioner for securing caste certificate rejected with a caption 1985 se niwas ka sakshay salang nahi hai nirsat.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue Scheduled Caste Certificate belonging to the case Chamar in the State of Uttarakhand in favour of petitioner"

2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents / State and the impugned order did not reveal any reason for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of

caste certificate. It appears that petitioner, who was born in District Haridwar in the year 1978 perhaps denied the caste certificate on the ground that she had married with one Shri Lekhraj, a resident of District Saharanpur but it is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner never went to Saharanpur and she is residing in District Haridwar, even after her marriage. Moreover, petitioner's daughter has already been granted caste certificate, so there appears no reason to deny the caste certificate to the petitioner.

3. For the purpose of clarity, we also take note of the Government Order dated 02.04.2013 bearing No. 1118/XVII- 1/2013-01(20)/2013, issued by State of Uttarakhand, in this regard and the case of the present petitioner is covered by the said Government Order wherein at Paragraph No. 4 the following provisions have been made, which reads as under:-

^^3 vfoHkkftr mRrj izns"k ds SC ST rFkk OBC ds O;fDr;ksa dks tkfr izek.k&i= rHkh fuxZr fd;k tk,xk] tc os 09 uoEcj 2000 ;k mlls iwoZ mRrjk[k.M jkT; ds fdlh Hkkx ds LFkk;h fuoklh ¼Permanent Resident½ gksaA 4-LFkk;h fuoklh (Permanent Resident) dh ifjHkk'kk rFkk mlds fu/kkZj.k ds laca/k esa fuEu funsZ"k fn, tkrs gS%& i. LFkk;h fuoklh (Permanent Resident) dh ifjHkk'kk ogh gksxh] tks lkekU; iz"kklu foHkkx }kjk fuxZr "kklukns"k la[;k%& [email protected],d&[email protected]@2001] fnukad 20 uoEcj 2001 esa nh xbZgSAbl "kklukns"k esa LFkk;h fuokl ls lacaf/kr O;oLFkk tks tkfr izek.k&i= fuxZr djus gsrq izklafxd gS] fuEu izdkj gS& a. O;fDr Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gS] rFkk b. O;fDr dk mRrjk[k.M esa ^LFkk;h vkokl^ (Permanent Home) gksA ^LFkk;h vkokl^ (Permanent Home) dk rkRi;Z ,sls O;fDr;ks als

gS] tks mRRjk[k.M esa iSr`d :Ik ls jg jgs gks avFkok ftudk mRrjk[k.M esa iSr`d vkokl gks] Hkys gh os viuh vkthfodk vkfn ds dkj.k izns"k ds ckgj fuokl dj jgk gksA vFkok O;fDr mRrjk[k.M esa U;wure 15 o'kZ ls fuokl dj jgk gksA ii. LFkk;h fuoklh esa ,slk O;fDr Hkh lfEefyr gksxk] ftldk tUe mRrjk[k.M esa 09 uoEcj 2000 ;k mlls iwoZ gqvk gks rFkk og vFkok mlds ekrk&firk mDr izLrj& 4¼i½dh "krsaZ iwjh djrs gksA iii. LFkk;h fuoklh esa ,slk O;fDr Hkh lfEefyr gksxk] ftldk tUe mRrjk[k.M esa 09 uoEcj] 2000 ds ckn gqvk gks vkSj mlds ekrk&firk mDr izLrj& 4 ¼i½ dh "krsaZ iwjh djrs gksA iv. LFkk;h fuoklh esa ,slk O;fDr Hkh lfEefyr gksxk] ftldh lsok,a mRrj izns"k iquxZBu vf/kfu;e] 2000 ds varxZr mRrjk[k.M jkT; dks LFkk;h :Ik ls vkoafVr dh xbZ gksA v. LFkk;h fuoklh esa ,slh iRuh Hkh lfEefyr gksxh] tks mRrjk[k.M ds LFkk;h fuoklh ls "kknh djus ds mijkUr vius ifr ds lkFk mRrjk[k.M esa jgrh gksA vi. LFkk;h fuoklhessa ,slk O;fDr Hkh lfEefyr gksxk tks orZeku mRrj izns"k ds fdlh Hkkx ls mRrjk[k.M es amigrate gksdj mRrjk[k.M esa jg jgk gks vkSj og izLrj & 4 dh ¼i½ ls ¼v½ rd dh fdlh Hkh "krZ dks iwjk djrk gksA vii. Tkfr izek.k&i= fuxZr djus dh n`f'V ls LFkk;h fuokl (Permanent Resident) gh izklafxr gSAfuokl ds laca/k esa vU; "kCnksa tSls fuokl djrk gS (Resides)] fuokl (Residence)] lkekU;r;k fuokl djrk gS^ (Ordinarily Resides) ^lnHkkoh fuoklh (Domicile) rFkk ^ewy fuoklh^ (Original Resident) dks fopkj vkSj mi;ksx esa ugha fy;k

tk;sA^^

4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The Tehsildar, Bhagwanpur, Haridwar - respondent no. 2 is directed to reconsider the matter and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and producing the documents to the petitioner to establish her case, in terms of the provisions referred to above, shall take a decision strictly, in accordance with law, by speaking and reasoned order within a period of 21 days from production of certified copy of this order.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)

SKS