YOGRAJ CHETTRI AND ANO. vs STATE OF SIKKIM AND ORS.

Court
High Court of Sikkim

CNR No: SKHC010000102024


THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
(Civil Extra-Ordinary Jurisdiction)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WP(C) No.3 of 2024


1. Shri Yograj Chettri,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Shri Bhoj Raj Chettri,
R/o Tadong, Daragaon, East Sikkim,
P.O. Daragaon & P.S. Sadar, Gangtok
East Sikkim-737102.

2. Smt. Barsha Chettri,
Aged about 33 years,
W/o Shri Yograj Chettri,
R/o Arithang,
P.O. & P.S. Gangtok
Pin Code : 737101.

... Petitioners

versus


1. State of Sikkim,
Represented by and through Chief Secretary,
Government of Sikkim,
Tashiling, Gangtok. East Sikkim-737101.

2. The Appellate Authority through
the Secretary Land Revenue,
and Disaster Management Department ,
Government of Sikkim,
Tashiling, Gangtok, East Sikkim-737101.

3. The Additional District Magistrate HQ, East District ,
District Collectorate East,
Government of Sikkim, Gangtok,
East Sikkim-737101.

4. The District Collector, East District ,
District Collectorate East,
Government of Sikkim-737101.

WP(C) No.3 of 2024
(Yograj Chettri and Ano. Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)



COURT NO.1


5. Smt. Buddha Maya Tamang,
W/o Shri Yograj Chettri,
R/o Dara Gaon, Tadong,
P.O. Daragaon & P.S. Gangtok, East Sikkim-737102

... Respondents

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Gulshan Lama, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Chettri, Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 to 4.

Ms. Gita Bista, and Ms. Pratikcha Gurung, Advocates for Respondent
No.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment Reserved on :
Judgment Pronounced on : 30.06.2026
Judgment uploaded on : 01.07.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

(A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J.)

The Petitioners claim that they are husband and wife. On the
basis of an affidavit and other relevant documents filed by the
Petitioners before the Learned Additional District Magistrate, Gangtok,
the Certificate of Identification (COI) was issued to Petitioner No. 2 on
the basis of her being the wife of Petitioner No. 1.
[2] The said certificate issued to Petitioner No. 2 was later cancelled
at the instance of Respondent No. 5, who claimed that she is the legally
wedded wife of Petitioner No. 1. The reasons are elaborately stated in
the impugned orders. The Learned Additional District Magistrate came to
the conclusion that Petitioner No. 2 obtained the COI by impersonating
Petitioner No. 1 to be her legal husband.
[3] Against the cancellation order, an appeal was filed before the
Appellate Authority, Land Revenue and Disaster Management
Page 2 of 5

WP(C) No.3 of 2024
(Yograj Chettri and Ano. Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)



COURT NO.1


Department. The Appellate Authority endorsed the view of the Learned
Additional District Magistrate in cancelling the COI.
[4] The first question that falls for consideration is the scope of inquiry
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the exercise of this
Court's power of judicial review. The controversy has now entered the
realm of determining the legality of the marriage, an issue that directly
concerns the legal status of the parties. Such a determination can be
made only by a competent Civil Court.
[5] The inquiry undertaken by the administrative authority is of a
limited and objective nature, confined solely to examining the
circumstances relating to the issuance of the Certificate of Identification
(COI) for the purpose of deciding whether it warrants cancellation. It
cannot assume the character of adjudication upon the validity of the
marriage or the legal status of the parties. In the exercise of its quasi-
judicial functions, the administrative authority is required to confine its
inquiry to the object and purpose of the regulatory framework under
which it acts, with a view to securing the administrative objectives
sought to be achieved by the statute or the applicable rules. Such an
inquiry is necessarily limited in scope and is not intended to adjudicate
genuinely disputed questions of fact relating to the personal or legal
status of the parties.
[6] The questions concerning the validity of a marriage or the marital
status of the disputants fall exclusively within the domain of the
competent Civil Court or Family Court, whose determination alone can
conclusively declare the legal status of the parties. Consequently, any
finding recorded by the administrative authority is confined to the
Page 3 of 5

WP(C) No.3 of 2024
(Yograj Chettri and Ano. Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)



COURT NO.1


regulatory purpose for which the inquiry is undertaken and cannot
operate as a binding adjudication on the personal status of the parties.
[7] This Court, on a careful examination of the records, finds no error
whatsoever in the decision of the learned Additional District Magistrate
cancelling the Certificate of Identification (COI). The order is based upon
the facts and circumstances brought on record, and no infirmity
warranting interference in the exercise of judicial review is made out. At
the same time, this Court clarifies that the facts and circumstances
relied upon in the administrative proceedings may also form the subject
matter of adjudication before the competent Civil Court or the Family
Court, as the case may be, in proceedings instituted by the Petitioner
seeking an appropriate declaration regarding the validity of the marriage
and the consequent legal status of the parties. Any declaration so
granted by the competent Court shall prevail and shall govern the rights
and obligations of the parties. Accordingly, the order passed by the
administrative authority shall remain subject to any declaratory decree
or other appropriate relief that may hereafter be granted by the
competent Civil Court or Family Court concerning the validity of the
marriage or the legal status of the parties.
[8] The Court need not exercise its power of judicial review as an
Appellate Court to interfere with the finding of facts, unless the case
falls within the parameters warranting the exercise of judicial review.
[9] If the Petitioners are advised that they are free to approach the
Civil Court, subject to the law of limitation applicable to such declaratory
relief.
Page 4 of 5

WP(C) No.3 of 2024
(Yograj Chettri and Ano. Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.)



COURT NO.1


Any orders passed herein shall be subject to such relief as may be
obtained before the Family Court or as the case may be, the competent
Civil Court.
[10] With the liberty reserved as above, Writ Petition No. 03 of
2024 stands disposed of without any interference with the impugned
orders.





Chief Justice
Approved for Reporting : Yes/No
avi/arc
Page 5 of 5