Gujarat High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of a domicile certificate application, Single Judge Bench of Nirzar S. Desai, J., held that the petitioner’s temporary residence outside Gujarat owing to her father’s official transfer did not disqualify her from claiming domicile of the State. Accordingly, the Court quashed the rejection order and directed issuance of the domicile certificate.
The Court also held that administrative instructions cannot impose additional conditions beyond those prescribed under the applicable rules.
Facts and Background
The petitioner, an 18-year-old student, was born in Mumbai in 2008. Her father was posted in Gujarat shortly thereafter, and she pursued her education in Mundra, Kutch, from nursery until Standard IV. In 2018, her father was transferred to Chennai, where the petitioner studied for two years before returning to Gujarat in 2020. She thereafter completed her education from Standard VII to XII in Ahmedabad.
After appearing for the NEET examination, the petitioner applied for a domicile certificate to claim the benefit of local domicile. The application was rejected by the Police Inspector on the ground that she had not continuously resided in Gujarat for 10 years, as contemplated under the Government Circular governing issuance of domicile certificates.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the rejection order and a direction to issue the domicile certificate.
Analysis
The Court noted that the controversy was no longer res integra and stood covered by the decisions in Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 17426 of 2018, Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 6118 of 2024, and Aman Ramesh Panjiyar v. Mamlatdar Office, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 4698.
Reiterating the principles laid down in Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari, the Court observed that domicile signifies a permanent relationship with a State and residence of a particular kind, which need not necessarily be uninterrupted. The applicable rules did not prescribe a mandatory requirement of 10 years’ continuous physical residence, and such a condition could not be introduced or enlarged through executive or administrative instructions.
The Court held that where a student temporarily leaves Gujarat because of the parent’s employment transfer and subsequently returns to continue education in the State, such period cannot be excluded while computing the requirement of residence. The temporary absence does not sever the person’s domicile or permanent connection with Gujarat.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the petitioner had spent almost her entire educational life in Gujarat and had remained outside the State only for 2 years solely because of her father’s transfer to Chennai. Treating that period as a break in continuous residence was therefore unreasonable and contrary to the law declared in the earlier decisions.
The Court further observed that the State had failed to point out any distinguishing feature warranting a departure from the binding precedents.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the order dated 20 March 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s application for a domicile certificate and directed the competent authority to issue the domicile certificate within one week, and in any event not later than 30 July 2026.
[Komal v. State of Gujarat, R/Spl. Civil Appl. No. 8474 of 2026, decided on 24-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Abhishek M. Mehta, Chaitali Dave, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Angesh Panchal, Assistant Government Pleader.
