Facts
The petitioner, born in Rajasthan, lived and studied in Gujarat for several periods, including from Senior KG to Standard 3 and from Standards 7 to 12.
Source reference: pp. 2–7, paras. 4.1–4.13Between 2018 and 2021, she lived and studied in Mumbai following her father’s employment transfer; the family later returned to Gujarat and purchased a residence there.
Source reference: pp. 2–7, paras. 4.1–4.13She applied for a Gujarat domicile certificate on 6 December 2025.
Source reference: pp. 2–7, paras. 4.1–4.13A police verification report confirmed the family’s property ownership and the petitioner’s schooling in Gujarat, but the application was rejected on the ground that she had not completed ten continuous years’ residence in the State. The rejection was upheld on appeal.
Source reference: pp. 2–7, paras. 4.1–4.13The petitioner challenged both orders, relying on her residence and education in Gujarat and the temporary nature of the family’s relocation.
Source reference: pp. 2–7, paras. 4.1–4.13Issues
Whether the petitioner’s temporary stay outside Gujarat, caused by her father’s employment transfer, interrupted the period of residence relevant to obtaining a Gujarat domicile certificate.
Source reference: pp. 11–13, paras. 11–13Whether the rejection orders should be quashed and the authorities directed to issue the domicile certificate.
Source reference: p. 13, paras. 14–15Law Applied
The Court relied on the principles stated in Muskan Sunilkant Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra v. State of Gujarat and Aman Ramesh Panjiyar v. Mamlatdar Office, Surat.
Source reference: pp. 8–12, paras. 9–10As explained in Muskan, the applicable rules require a student to be domiciled in Gujarat but do not themselves prescribe a minimum continuous ten-year stay; a requirement not found in the rules cannot be added by administrative instructions or circular.
Source reference: pp. 8–12, paras. 9–10Domicile denotes residence of a particular kind—indefinite rather than merely fleeting—and, in the circumstances considered in those precedents, a student’s temporary absence for education, followed by return to Gujarat, need not be excluded when assessing residence.
Source reference: pp. 8–12, paras. 9–10The State relied on the General Administration Department’s circular requiring ten years’ continuous residence.
Source reference: pp. 7–8, para. 6Reasoning
The petitioner had studied in Gujarat for nearly eleven years, with the period outside the State attributable to her father’s transfer.
Source reference: pp. 11–13, paras. 11–14Applying the coordinate Bench decisions, the Court held that it would be unreasonable to treat that compelled temporary relocation as breaking her period of residence for the ten-year requirement.
Source reference: pp. 11–13, paras. 11–14The State identified no distinguishable facts warranting a different result.
Source reference: pp. 11–13, paras. 11–14Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to succeed.
It quashed the rejection orders dated 21 March 2026 and 3 August 2026 and directed the competent authority to issue her a domicile certificate, preferably within three weeks of receiving the order.
Source reference: p. 14, paras. 15–16The petition was allowed and the Rule made absolute.
Source reference: p. 14, paras. 15–16Original Court PDF
MANUSHREE MANISH AGARWAL SINCE MINOR THROUGH MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN ANJU MANISH SINGHALvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
