Shyam Narayan vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

V.K. Bist, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 to accept the application of the petitioner�s son (Shubham Kanojia) for issuance of scheduled caste certificate showing the case as Dhobi and issue the Scheduled caste certificate to the petitioner�s son forthwith.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner�s son belongs to the Dhobi caste, which is notified as Scheduled caste. The petitioner is a businessman. The son of the petitioner was born on 21.03.1992 and from his childhood he studied at District Udham Singh Nagar. The son of the petitioner passed his XIIth Examination in the year 2010 from Army School Hempur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner got his entire education from the State of Uttarakhand. After completing his education, the son of the petitioner is in urgent need of caste certificate for higher studies. Therefore, the petitioner applied for caste certificate for his son before the respondent No. 4- Tehsildar, Tehsil-Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, but caste certificate is not being issued to the son of the petitioner.

Although the petitioner has also prayed a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 5 & 6 not to cancel the admission/seat of the petitioner�s son but during the course of argument learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not intend to press this relief at this stage rather he confined his prayer towards prayer No. 1 only.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is living in the State of Uttarakhand for the last 28 years. The petitioner was issued a Scheduled caste certificate on 23.06.1984 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur. The son of the petitioner was also issued a domicile certificate on 21.07.2010 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He also submitted that the son of the petitioner was born and brought up in the State of Uttarakhand and from his childhood he studied in the State of Uttarakhand. Thus, it cannot be said that the son of the petitioner is not original resident of State of Uttarakhand. He further submitted that petitioner applied for the caste certificate for his son before Tehsildar, Tehsil-Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar but the Tehsildar did not accept the application and refused to entertain the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraph 7 of the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 316 of 2008 (S/B) in which this Court has observed that for defining expression �original resident� one aspect which can be taken in constructing the interpretation is to include the period of residence of 15 years so as to connote the purpose and meaning of the expression �original resident�. He argued that the action of the respondents is not only illegal but also arbitrary.

Prima facie, this Court is of the view that at the time of creation of State of Uttarakhand, the son of the petitioner was residing in State of Uttarakhand. He was born and brought up in District Udham Singh Nagar. Now, it cannot be said that the son of the petitioner is not original resident of State of Uttarakhand. But, since the application has not been accepted by the Tehsildar, no order interim or final can be passed at this stage. But, in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 Tehsildar, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar to accept the application of the petitioner�s son (Shubham Kanojia) for issuance of caste certificate and further to take final decision on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three days from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The respondent No. 4 will also consider whether the petitioner is bonafidely residing in the State of Uttarakhand for last 15 years.

Let a certified copy of the order be given to the counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges.

Interim relief application No. 6510 of 2010 also stands disposed of.