Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. VINITA YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Vinita Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 29222 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10244 (24 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29222 of  2006

Smt. Vinita Yadav

Vs.

State of U.P.& Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated  05/5/2006 by which the representation of the petitioner against cancellation of her domicile certificate has been rejected.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the  petitioner had obtained a domicile certificate dated 23/11/2005  being resident of Village Khurrampur District Azamgarh. Smt. Gayatri Rai, the respondent no.4, filed a complaint that she was resident of Village Newada and not of Village Khurrampur, therefore the domicile certificate was liable to be quashed. The said certificate was cancelled vide order dated 23/2/2006, against which the present petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13659/2006, and this Court vide judgment and order 07/3/2006 set-aside the said order on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not given to her and the authority was directed to decide the matter afresh. The authority asked the parties to lead evidence, documentary as well as oral. Petitioner did not file any affidavit nor examined any persons whatsoever nor even herself, rather submitted some letters written by some residents of Village Khurrampur along with the letter of Gram Pradhan showing that she was resident of Khurrampur.  The respondent no.4 Smt. Gayatri Rai in support of her case, filed large number of affidavits of various persons and also examined herself.

The authority after weighing the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an ordinary resident of Village Khurrampur, rather resident of Newada, though authority took note of the fact that the father in law of the petitioner Shri Hansraj had purchased certain laid in Village Khurrampur three years ago and rejected her representation.

There is nothing on the record on the basis of which finding of fact recorded by the authority can be held to be perverse or otherwise illegal. We cannot sit in appeal against the finding of fact recorded on the basis of evidence led by the parties.

The writ petition  lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

24/5/2006/SB


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.