The Gujarat High Court quashed the rejection of a minor’s domicile certificate application, holding that temporary relocation outside the State due to a parent’s central-government transfer does not break the continuity of residence required for domicile status. The Court ruled that the 1989 GAD Circular’s ten-year continuous stay requirement cannot be imposed where the Home Department Circular DOM/14/2009/F.II governs eligibility, and directed the authorities to issue the certificate within three weeks.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manushree Manish Agarwal, a minor represented by her mother and natural guardian Anju Manish Singhal, sought a writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash the rejection orders dated 21.03.2026 and 03.08.2026 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, which denied her a domicile certificate on the ground of insufficient continuous residence in Gujarat.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was born on 03.05.2009 in Alwar, Rajasthan.
- Her father, Manish Singhal, joined the Ministry of Health, Government of India on 04.02.2010.
- In May 2014 the family relocated to Ahmedabad, Gujarat following a central-government transfer.
- On 30.06.2014 a Leave and License Agreement was executed for premises at 8, Old Row House, Chandrapuri Apartment, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad.
- From 2014-2015 the petitioner studied in Senior KG at Kidzee School, Gurukul Road, Ahmedabad.
- From 2015 to 2018 she completed Standards 1st to 3rd at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad.
- In June 2018 the family temporarily relocated to Mumbai, Maharashtra due to the father’s job transfer.
- From 2018 to 2021 she completed Standards 4th to 6th at Kendriya Vidyalaya IIT Powai, Mumbai.
- In May 2021 the family returned to Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
- On 10.06.2021 the family purchased and registered a permanent residential property at Flat A-303, Aditya Heavens, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad via a registered Sale Deed (Index-2).
- From 2021 to 2023 she completed Standards 7th and 8th at Global Indian International School, Godrej Garden City, Ahmedabad; a School Leaving/Transfer Certificate was issued on 17.04.2023.
- On 19.08.2022 Voter IDs were issued to Anju Singhal and Manish Singhal showing the Chandkheda address.
- From 2023 to 2025 she completed Standards 9th and 10th at Anand Niketan, Sughad, Gandhinagar; the CBSE Class 10 marksheet was issued on 13.05.2025 and the School Leaving Certificate on 18.05.2025.
- On 13.04.2024 property tax for the Aditya Heavens property was paid to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
- During 2025-2026 she completed Standard 11th (Science Stream) at Puna International School, Zundal, Gandhinagar and enrolled in Standard 12th for the 2026-2027 academic session.
- The father’s official transfer orders were issued on 09.06.2014, 20.02.2018, 21.07.2023 and 07.06.2024.
- On 06.12.2025 the petitioner submitted an application for a Domicile Certificate (Application No. 37/2026) for NEET purposes.
- A field inquiry by the Chandkheda Police Station yielded a verification report dated 20.03.2026 confirming property ownership, no criminal record and schooling within Gujarat, recommending issuance of the certificate.
- On 21.03.2026 Respondent No. 2 rejected the application, citing the 1989 GAD Circular’s ten-year continuous stay requirement and erroneously stating that the petitioner had studied Standards 4th to 6th in Rajasthan.
- On 05.06.2026 the petitioner filed a statutory Domicile Appeal before Respondent No. 2.
- On 03.08.2026 Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned rejection order upholding the earlier decision.
Procedural History
- 06.12.2025: Domicile Certificate application filed.
- 20.03.2026: Police verification report issued.
- 21.03.2026: Respondent No. 2 rejected the application.
- 05.06.2026: Domicile Appeal filed before Respondent No. 2.
- 03.08.2026: Respondent No. 3 issued the impugned rejection order.
- 16.10.2026: Judgment of the Gujarat High Court delivered.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (a) a writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash and set aside the rejection orders dated 21.03.2026 and 03.08.2026; (b) a direction to the respondents to issue a domicile certificate forthwith; (c) interim relief to stay the effect of the rejection orders; and (d) such further orders as deemed just and proper.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the ten-year continuous stay requirement stipulated by the 1989 GAD Circular could be applied to deny a domicile certificate when the applicant had otherwise resided in Gujarat for a sufficient period and temporary relocation due to a parent’s transfer did not break continuity, and whether the Home Department Circular DOM/14/2009/F.II overrides the GAD Circular’s condition.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the coordinate bench decisions in Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra v. State of Gujarat and Aman Ramesh Panjiyar v. Mamlatdar Office, Surat to argue that temporary relocation outside Gujarat for a parent’s transfer does not interrupt the computation of continuous residence. It was contended that the Home Department Circular DOM/14/2009/F.II, which governs domicile certificates for students, does not prescribe a minimum continuous stay and therefore the GAD Circular cannot impose an additional condition. The petitioner further argued that the rejection ignored the favourable verification report dated 20.03.2026 and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by being arbitrary and discriminatory.
For the Respondent
The respondent defended the rejection orders on the basis of the 1989 GAD Circular issued by the General Administration Department, which mandates a continuous period of ten years’ residence in Gujarat for eligibility for a domicile certificate. It was submitted that the petitioner had not resided continuously in Gujarat for ten years because of the stay in Mumbai from 2018 to 2021, and thus she was not entitled to the certificate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court noted that the coordinate bench of the Gujarat High Court had already considered the effect of temporary relocation due to parental transfer in the aforementioned cases and held that such periods cannot be excluded while computing the minimum continuous stay of ten years in Gujarat. The Court emphasized that domicile, as a legal concept, requires a residence of a particular kind that need not be continuous but must be indefinite and not purely fleeting, as elucidated in Halsbury’s Laws of England. The Court held that the 1989 GAD Circular, being an administrative instruction, could not introduce a condition not prescribed by the governing rules; the Home Department Circular DOM/14/2009/F.II, which specifically deals with domicile certificates for students, does not contain any ten-year continuous stay requirement. Consequently, the GAD Circular’s condition was ultra vires. The Court also relied on the verification report dated 20.03.2026, which affirmed the petitioner’s property ownership, clean record and schooling in Gujarat, and found the rejection orders to be non-speaking and arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed.
'The impugned orders dated 03.08.2026 passed by respondent no.3 and 21.03.2026 passed by respondent no.2 are hereby quashed and set aside.'
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside the rejection orders dated 21.03.2026 (Respondent No. 2) and 03.08.2026 (Respondent No. 3) and directed the concerned authority to issue a domicile certificate in favour of the petitioner immediately, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The judgment also affirmed that temporary relocation due to a parent’s transfer does not break the continuity of residence required for domicile status.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Domicile Not Dependent on Continuous Stay
Administrative authorities cannot insist on a strict ten-year continuous stay where the governing rules do not prescribe such a condition; domicile is satisfied by an indefinite, non-fleeting residence.
Administrative Circulars Cannot Override Statutory Rules
Any condition imposed by an executive circular that is absent from the parent rules or statutory framework is liable to be struck down as ultra vires.
Temporary Transfers Do Not Break Residency
When a student’s relocation outside the State is solely due to a parent’s transfer and the student returns to pursue further education, the period of absence must be included in the residence computation.
Verification Reports Are Binding
A favourable police verification report confirming property ownership, lack of criminal record and educational continuity creates a strong presumption in favour of issuing a domicile certificate, and its disregard renders the decision arbitrary.
