Allowed

Smt. Ambika W/O Shivraj D/O Basvaraj v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2014WP/100487/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's residence certificate. The court held that assuming one's residence based on marriage to a resident of another place is illegal and arbitrary, as residence depends on actual facts, not Hindu law presumptions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.1.2013 cancelling the respondent petitioner's residence certificate is quashed. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to make personal enquiry and pass appropriate orders

Smt. Ambika W/O Shivraj D/O Basvaraj Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.100487/2013 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Ambika W/o Shivraj D/o Basvaraj, R/of Aurad – K, Post. Basava Pattanna, Farhatabad Hobli, Tq. & Dist. Gulbarga – 585 102.

¶9

..Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)

¶11

AND :

¶12

The State of Karnataka Reptd. by its Secretary to Govt., Dept. of Women & Child Welfare, M.S. Building, Bangalore – 1.

¶13

The Asst. Commissioner, Gulbarga – 585 102.

¶14

¶15

The Tahasildar, Gulbarga South, Gulbarga – 585 102.

¶16

Nagamma D/o Sharnappa, R/o Aurad-K, Post. Basava Pattanna, Farhatabad Hobli, Tq. & Dist: Gulbarga – 585 102.

¶17

..Respondents

¶18

(By Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, HCGP for R1- R3 Sri Ashok S. Kinagi, Adv., for R4)

¶19

This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Praying to quash the order dtd. 22.01.2013 issued by the respondent No.2 in file No. SANKIRNA/39/2012-13/428, the copy of which is at Annexure-F and etc.,

¶20

This WP coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The order of the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, dated 22.1.2013, vide Annexure-F, by

¶23

¶24

which the Assistant Commissioner has cancelled the residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner, is called in question in this writ petition.

¶25

The records reveal that the petitioner and the 4^th respondent applied for the post of Anganawadi Worker in respect of Aurad-K Village, Gulbarga Taluk. Petitioner claiming to be the resident of Aurad-K Village applied for the said post and she was selected based on merit. 4^th respondent’s candidature was not found favourable, since the petitioner secured higher number of marks in SSLC than the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, it seems, respondent No.4 made a representation before the Assistant Commissioner alleging that the petitioner’s residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar is false, inasmuch as the petitioner is not the resident of Aurad-K Village, but she is the resident of Gulbarga Town. It seems, it is

¶26

¶27

also brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner by the 4^th respondent that the husband of the petitioner viz., Shivanand @ Shivaraj S/o.Shivasharanappa is the resident of Bhavaninagar, Gulbarga. The Assistant Commissioner without holding the spot inspection, heard both the parties and passed the impugned order cancelling the residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner to the effect she is the resident of Aurad-K Village.

¶28

Undisputely, the petitioner is originally from Aurad-K Village. It is her parental place. She passed SSLC and PUC from that place only. However, she married Sri Shivanand @ Shivaraj, who is stated to be the resident of Bhavaninagar, Gulbarga Town.

¶29

The Assistant Commissioner based on the fact that the petitioner’s husband is the resident of

¶30

¶31

Gulbarga has passed the impugned order concluding that the petitioner is also the resident of Gulbarga. According to the Assistant Commissioner, the Hindu female, after the marriage will live with her husband and therefore she is presumed to be the resident of Gulbarga. This Court at a loss to understand as to why the words “Hindu” and “Hindu Law” are brought in the impugned order unnecessarily. The order of the Assistant Commissioner impliedly suggests that the women folk of other religions may not live with their respective husbands. Such observations are illegal, arbitrary and hence are depricated. In the modern society both spouses may be working outside and earning. In that event, one spouse may live at a distance place from that of the place of other spouse only for the purpose of employment irrespective of religions. In our society, undoubtedly the couple live together. The word “live” does not really mean

¶32

¶33

physically living under one roof. As aforementioned, both spouses may be working in different places, however by living together. Therefore, it all depends upon the facts of each case. The place of residence cannot be assumed and presumed only on the basis of the marriage. In number of matters, the husband may be unemployed and in that context, he may live with his wife wherever she may live and work. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner will have to pass orders based on fact situation and not merely on assumptions. Therefore, the impugned is liable to be quashed.

¶34

Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 22.1.2013 at Annexure-F stands quashed. It is open for the Assistant Commissioner to visit the spot and find out the actual fact situation. The Assistant Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders after making personal enquiry in the matter, as early as

¶35

¶36

possible but not later than the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

*ck/-

Smt. Ambika W/O Shivraj D/O Basvaraj v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ambika W/O Shivraj D/O Basvaraj v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nizamuddin Bhusnur and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

North West Karnataka Transport Corporation(Nwkrtc) Vs Fajal Ahamad S/O Ameen Sab Kusur

Sri Biradar Sanjay Mahadevappa S/O Mahadevapaand Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Laximibai W/O Sanjeevkumar and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka Andors

Mohammed Haneef Since Deceased by Lrs. Vs Amanulla Khan S/O Subhankhan

The Managing Director and Ors. Vs Md.Farooq S/O Abdul Gani