KOMAL D/O SANSARCHANDRA CHAUBE vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8474 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
KOMAL D/O SANSARCHANDRA CHAUBE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANGESH PANCHAL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 24/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta with
learned advocate Ms. Chaitali Dave for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Angesh Panchal for the respondent –
State.
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, the matter is taken
up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Angesh Panchal
waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent – State.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Abhishek
Mehta states, upon instructions, that the
petitioner is not pressing the prayer made in
paragraph 24(C) of the petition. The present
petition shall, therefore, be confined only to
the prayer made in paragraph 24(B) of the
petition.
4. In view of the above, the present petition is
now pressed only with regard to the prayer for
quashing and setting aside the impugned order
dated 20.03.2026 issued by the Inspector of
Police, Sarkhej Police Station, and for a
further direction to the respondents to issue a
Domicile Certificate in favour of the
petitioner.
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner, a student aged about 18 years, was
born on 15.03.2008 at Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Thereafter, the petitioner's father joined a
company and was posted at Mundra, District
Kutch, Gujarat, in the year 2008. The petitioner
was admitted to the nursery class on 16.04.2011
and continued to study at a school in Mundra,
District Kutch, Gujarat, till Standard IV, i.e.
up to 28.03.2018.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner's father was
transferred to Chennai, Tamil Nadu, for a period
of two years, i.e. from 21.04.2018 till May,
2020. Subsequently, in the year 2020, the
petitioner's father was transferred back to
Gujarat, whereupon the petitioner was admitted
to Delhi Public School, Bopal, Ahmedabad, in
Standard VII and continued her studies there
till completion of Standard XII in March, 2026.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner filled up the
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
application forms for various courses, including
the NEET examination for medical admission. For
the purpose of claiming the benefit of local
domicile, the petitioner applied for issuance of
a Domicile Certificate on 05.02.2026 by making
an application to respondent No.3 - Police
Inspector.
8. However, the said application came to be
rejected by respondent No.3 by an order dated
06.03.2026, which was communicated to the
petitioner on 20.03.2026, on the ground that the
petitioner was not a continuous resident of the
State of Gujarat for a period of ten years and,
therefore, respondent No.3 was not in a position
to issue a Domicile Certificate in favour of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition
challenging the order dated 06.03.2026, which
was communicated on 20.03.2026.
9. At this stage, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Angesh Panchal points out that the
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
order rejecting the petitioner's application was
passed on 06.03.2026 and was communicated to the
petitioner only on 20.03.2026.
10. Be that as it may, as there is only one
order and the same bears the date of 20.03.2026,
the petitioner has treated the order dated
20.03.2026 as the impugned order in the present
petition.
11. Learned advocate Ms. Chaitali Dave
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
issue on hand is no longer res-integra. She
submitted that the issue is squarely covered by
a catena of decisions. In support of her
submissions, she relied upon the decisions in
Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari versus State of
Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.17426 of
2018 and allied matters, decided on 05.12.2018;
Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra versus State of
Gujarat and Others, Special Civil Application
No.6118 of 2024, decided on 30.07.2024; and Aman
Ramesh Panjiyar versus Mamlatdar Office, Surat
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
and Another, Special Civil Application No.13338
of 2025, decided on 16.10.2025.
12. Learned advocate Ms. Chaitali Dave
submitted that the aforesaid decisions fairly
cover the issue on hand and, therefore, the
impugned order dated 20.03.2026 deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the respondents may be
directed to issue a Domicile Certificate in
favour of the present petitioner.
13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Angesh Panchal appearing for the respondent-
State vehemently opposed the petition and
submitted that, as per the Circular governing
the issuance of Domicile Certificates, being
Circular No. PTR/1114-65F.II issued by the
General Administration Department, Government of
Gujarat, the petitioner is required to be a
resident of the State of Gujarat for a
continuous period of ten years. He submitted
that the petitioner has not completed a
continuous period of ten years as a resident of
Page 6 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
the State of Gujarat and, therefore, in view of
the aforesaid Circular, the petitioner is not
entitled to the issuance of a Domicile
Certificate of the State of Gujarat. He,
therefore, submitted that the order dated
20.03.2026 has been rightly passed.
14. Learned advocate Ms. Chaitali Dave, in
rejoinder, submitted that, in fact, out of the
petitioner's 18 years of age, the petitioner has
spent 16 years in the State of Gujarat. She
submitted that, considering the fact that the
petitioner has spent the majority of her life in
Gujarat, which is more than ten years, and had
to reside at Chennai only for a period of two
years on account of her father's transfer,
respondent No.3 may be directed to issue a
Domicile Certificate in favour of the petitioner
by quashing and setting aside the order dated
20.03.2026.
15. I have heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and have perused the record.
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
I have also considered the decisions relied upon
by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
16. The Co-ordinate 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
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
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
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
Page 9 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
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 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
Page 10 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
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
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
Page 11 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
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 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
Page 12 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
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 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
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
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 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.
Direct service is permitted, today.”
17. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid two
decisions was also followed in the case of Aman
Ramesh Panjiyar (Supra). Hence, I am not
reproducing the relevant extracts from the said
decision.
18. In view of the aforesaid decisions relied
upon by the petitioner, it emerges from the
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
record that, except for a period of two years,
the petitioner pursued her education in the
State of Gujarat right from KG up to Standard
XII in various schools. The petitioner had to
reside and study at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, only
for a period of two years on account of the
transfer of her father, and it is only on
account of the said transfer that the break in
the continuous period of ten years came to be
created.
19. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
already considered the aspect that where a
student goes outside the State for a few years
to pursue studies and thereafter returns to the
State of his/her permanent residence to pursue
further education, the period during which the
student remained outside the State of Gujarat
cannot be excluded while computing the minimum
continuous stay of ten years in the State of
Gujarat.
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
20. In the present case, the petitioner was
compelled to reside outside the State of Gujarat
for a period of two years solely on account of
the transfer of her father. Therefore, in view
of the aforesaid decisions, it would not be
reasonable to treat the said period as a break
while computing the petitioner's continuous
residence in the State of Gujarat for the
purpose of the requirement of ten years.
21. Accordingly, in the absence of any
distinguishable facts having been brought on
record by the learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Angesh Panchal, even after filing of
the affidavit, the case of the petitioner is
required to be considered in the light of the
decisions relied upon by the petitioner. Hence,
the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
20.03.2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondent - concerned authority is directed to
issue a Domicile Certificate in favour of the
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026
C/SCA/8474/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2026
petitioner immediately, preferably within a
period of one week from today, but in any case
not later than 30.07.2026.
23. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Jul 24 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jul 26 15:18:07 IST 2026