SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya will deliver its judgment on the case pertaining to the delay in providing domicile to a resident on December 10.
During the hearing on Friday, the court observed said that counter affidavit has been filed by the state respondents and counter affidavit on behalf of the Centre was declined by A. Paul, Assistant Solicitor General on the ground that she has not received any instruction. The court stated that no further adjournment shall be granted.
The court heard R. Gurung, counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the petitioner was a resident of Shillong for the last three generations and had applied for domicile certificate, but it took ten months to get the certificate and that too only after the intervention of the court.
A. Kumar, Advocate General assisted by R. Colney, Government Advocate submitted that since there is a clear cut notification there should not be any difficulty to get the permanent residential certificate or domicile certificate.
However, he also produced certain notifications bearing No. POL.97/74/174 dated Shillong, the 10th June, wherein the year is not clear. The AG also submitted three judgments passed by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, A. Paul, ASG submitted that from Para 8 of the affidavit, it is clear that the Government of Meghalaya has an intention not to grant the domicile certificate, which goes against the whole concept of the Constitution of India and prayed that necessary judgment may be passed. The argument thus concluded.
The court on November 26 had summoned I Majaw, Additional Deputy Commissioner of East Khasi Hills district for the delay in providing domicile to a resident.
The Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong next day appeared in person before the court and submitted that the birth certificate of the petitioner is alleged to be faked, that is why she could not grant the domicile certificate in time.
However, she informed the court that she has already issued the provisional domicile certificate in compliance of the order of the court. After hearing the submissions advanced by the counsels, the court considered the view that the matter needs to be addressed once and for all and hence, the presence of the Central Government was also necessary.
The Secretary, Home Affairs, Government of India and the Secretary, Law, Government of India were made a party and court issued notice to them.
However, since A. Paul, ASG was present and accepted the notice on behalf of the Central Government, no formal notice was called.
