Court : Uttaranchal
..... the certificate in question is not domicile certificate, but is permanent residence certificate, imposition of 15 years condition is totally unreasonable. it was stated that constitution of india provides a requirement of 5 years for grant of citizenship of the country and, therefore, it is not acceptable that the state authority should impose a condition of 15 years of prior stay in the ..... residing in the state of uttarakhand for a period of 5 years prior to applying for a residence / domicile certificate. 12. while sub-article (2) of article 15 of the constitution of india prohibits discrimination on the ground of, amongst others, place of birth, sub-article (2) of article 16 prohibits discrimination, amongst others, on the ground of place of birth as ..... required period of residence, however, was not indicated in the said judgment. 13. the judgment, under appeal, is of the view that, since residence of 5 years in india entitles grant of citizenship, there is no just reason why the state should impose residence requirement of 15 years. as aforesaid, respondent no. 1 failed to establish his residence in the state of ..... judgment of the honble supreme court rendered in the case of dr. pradeep jain and others vs. union of india and others, reported in (1984) 3 s.c.c. 654. in that case, the question was, whether, consistently with the constitutional values, admissions to a medical college or any other institution of higher learning situate in a state can be confined .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : (2006)206CTR(Uttranchal)56; 285ITR74(Uttaranchal)
..... the high court under article 226 of the constitution of india without exhausting the alternate remedy. the order impugned in this petition is an order passed by the second respondent without power and jurisdiction ..... and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to approach this court under article 226 of the constitution of india for quashing the said order without exhausting any alternate remedy of filing appeal. hence, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the ..... order. the availability of an alternate remedy does not operate as a bar against the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india. moreover, if the impugned order is an order passed without power and jurisdiction, the aggrieved person is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of ..... ble supreme court, the orders mentioned in section 21 of the general clauses act are not orders of the kind contemplated in section 5 of the citizenship act. in mukand iron and steel works limited v. v. g. deshpande reported in  69 fjr 280 ;  lab ic 1612 ..... rajasthan reported in air 1967 sc 107, a constitution bench of the hon'ble supreme court considered whether apart from the power under section 10(2) of the citizenship act, the collector having power to grant the registration certificate under the citizenship act, had the power to cancel it by .....Tag this Judgment!