JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 4 and Sri Anurag Srivasatava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.5. 2. The petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar (Opposite Party No.3) contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby his application for re-consideration of the order dated 10.04.2014 cancelling the domicile certificate No. 481132034563, has been rejected. 3. Shorn off unnecessary details the fact of the case are as under : 4. According to the petitioner, he is residing as a tenant in the House of Sri Mant Ram Patel, S/o Shri Shriram Patel, situated at Village-Chintaura, P.O. Mubarakpur, Pargana & Tehsil - Tanda, District-Ambedkar Nagar for more than 5 years. He is having ration card for Gram Panchayat Chintaura as well as his name finds place in the voter list of Village-Chintaura, P.O. Mubarakpur, Pargana & Tehsil Tanda, District-Ambedkar Nagar. The petitioner also owns a plot of land bearing Gata No. 685, measuring 632 sq mt in Village-Chintaura through sale deed dated 23.09.2013. 5. It has been stated that in order to obtain LPG Dealership under the Rajeeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "RGGLV Scheme"), the petitioner made an application for domicile certificate before the competent authority. In response thereof, the competent authority issued the domicile certificate to the petitioner on 04.10.2013. Thereafter petitioner was selected for the dealership and a letter of intent was also issued to him by the petroleum company i.e. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") on 21.02.2014. 6. According to the petitioner, after his selection for LPG dealership, the opposite party no. 5-Santosh Kumar Jaiswal started pressurizing him for inducting him in the business as a partner and when the petitioner refused to succumb the pressure, opposite party no. 5-Santosh Kumar Jaiswal filed a complaint on 28.02.2014 for cancellation of petitioner's domicile certificate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Tanda, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, canceled his domicile certificate vide order dated 14.03.2014. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2014, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 2680 (MB) 2014. 5-Santosh Kumar Jaiswal filed a complaint on 28.02.2014 for cancellation of petitioner's domicile certificate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Tanda, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, canceled his domicile certificate vide order dated 14.03.2014. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2014, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 2680 (MB) 2014. This Court, vide order dated 3.04.2014, while disposing the writ petition, remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar with the direction to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after issuing notice within one month and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Pursuant to the order dated 3.04.2014, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.04.2014 requiring him to submit his reply and the evidence in support of his application. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the notice on 2.05.2014. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, passed the order dated 23.05.2014, rejecting the claim of the petitioner/represention and affirmed the order dated 14.03.2014 by which his domicile certificate was cancelled. 9. Hence the instant writ petition. 10. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, in support of his claim of domicile, had submitted copies of ration card, the Family Register, Voter's List and Certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan of Village-Chintaura, Tehsil-Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, as well as the certificate and the affidavit duly executed by his landlord, endorsing the fact that the petitioner is residing in Village-Chintaura. He submits that as per Government Order dated 18.02.2003, for issuing domicile certificate, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who is the competent authority, has to ensure that the applicant is residing at the relevant place since at least 3 years prior to the date of application for domicile certificate. His submission is that the petitioner fulfills all the requirement in terms of the Government Order dated 18.02.2003 as he was residing at village Chintaura since 5 years prior to the date of application and landlord's unrebutted statement clearly endorsed this fact. Similarly, the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan also clearly mentions the fact that the petitioner is residing at the Village-Chintaura since more than 3 years prior to the date of application. 11. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the Govt. Similarly, the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan also clearly mentions the fact that the petitioner is residing at the Village-Chintaura since more than 3 years prior to the date of application. 11. Elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the Govt. order, dated 18.02.2003, the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan is a relevant and admissible piece of evidence in support of the claim of domicile. There has to be a very compelling and cogent reason for not relying upon the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan. In the instant matter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, while rejecting the domicile certificate of the petitioner, has not recorded any reason with respect to ignoring the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan. Similarly, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar erred in not considering other material relied upon by the petitioner. 12. Per Contra, learned Standing counsel has submitted that for the purpose of issuance of Domicile Certificate, the State Government has issued a Government Order on 18.2.2003. As per the scheme of Government Order dated 18.02.2003, as specified in Placitum No. 3 of the said Government order, the requirement of issuance of a Domicile Certificate is that applicant or his parents are either domiciliary of the concerned district or he/she has been temporarily residing in the said district for the last three years. Thus the basic condition for issuance of Domicile Certificate is that a person is residing at a particular place since the last three years. The petitioner originally hails from village Salahuddinpur H/o Chandpur, Tanda. However, on account of misrepresentation of fact, he was issued a Domicile Certificate on 4.10.2013. This certificate came under scrutiny on a complaint having been made by one Sri Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Village Chitaura, Post and Tehsil Akbarpur District Ambedkar Nagar. The matter was considered and on 14.03.2014 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, cancelled the Domicile Certificate. Against the order dated 14.03.2014, the petitioner preferred writ petition no. 2680 (M/B) of 2014 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court on 3.4.2014 with a direction to the Sub divisional Officer, Tanda to pass appropriate order after issuing notice and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Against the order dated 14.03.2014, the petitioner preferred writ petition no. 2680 (M/B) of 2014 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court on 3.4.2014 with a direction to the Sub divisional Officer, Tanda to pass appropriate order after issuing notice and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 3.4.2014, the matter again came up under inquiry and after affording due opportunity to adduce evidence and to lead oral evidence by providing personal hearing, the order dated 23.5.2014 has been passed, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 13. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 23.5.2014 has been passed on proper appraisal of facts and circumstances of the case and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.5 has submitted that on 8.9.2013, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. published an advertisement for the award of LPG dealership under the RGGLV Scheme for the location Gram Sabha Chintaura, Pargana & Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar. In order to submit the form under the RGGLV Scheme and presenting the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Gram Chintaura, he purchased a plot of land No.685 measuring about 0.385 hectare of Gram Chintaura vide sale deed dated 23.9.2013, mentioning his address as Gram Sabha Salauddinpur, Gram Chandpur Tanda, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar. After eleven days from the date of purchase of the aforesaid land, the petitioner applied for Domicile Certificate vide application dated 4.10.2013, enclosing the photocopy of ration card and certificate given by the Gram Pradhan. On the basis of the said documents, the petitioner obtained Domicile Certificate No. 481132034563 on 4.10.2013 from the office of Tehsildar. 15. Mr. Srivastava has submitted that after getting the domicile certificate on the basis of forged documents, the petitioner applied on the format for the award of RGGLV at location Gram Sabha Chintaura, Pargana & Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereas the said dealership was for the innovative residents of Gram Chintaura on first preference basis. 15. Mr. Srivastava has submitted that after getting the domicile certificate on the basis of forged documents, the petitioner applied on the format for the award of RGGLV at location Gram Sabha Chintaura, Pargana & Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereas the said dealership was for the innovative residents of Gram Chintaura on first preference basis. His submission is that the petitioner was not the resident of Gram Chintaura as on one hand, neither has got any house in the said Gram nor his name was mentioned in the Parivar Register and on the other hand, the name of the petitioner was mentioned in Parivar Register and Voter list of Gram Ariya. Apart from this, the name of the petitioner and his wife Smt. Renu Singh is mentioned in the Parivar Register and Voter List of Gram Chandpur and the ration card of the petitioner also relates to Gram Chandipur. 16. Counsel for the respondent No.5 has further submitted that the residents of Gram Sabha Chintaura and the Gram Pradhan also stated that the petitioner had neither resided at Gram Chintaura nor he is a tenant. Furthermore, the house of the person, in which the petitioner is said to be tenant, belongs to his maternal uncle and his name himself was mentioned at serial No. 1235 of Part No. 105 of partial Katheri at Gram Vidhan Sabha 277 and at serial No. 620 of the part No. 101 of Vidhan Sabha 278 Tanda. In these backgrounds, respondent No.5 preferred a complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the S.D.M., Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar instituted an inquiry and the Tehsildar, Tanda was asked to make inquiry in the matter. The Tehsildar, Tanda, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as opposite party No.5 and afforded opportunity of hearing, submitted his report dated 14.3.2014 to the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, establishing the fact that the petitioner is not the resident of Gram Chintaura for the last three years and had obtained the resident certificate hiding the true and correct facts, hence, the resident certificate issued to the petitioner may be cancelled. On receipt of the inquiry report, the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, cancelled the residence/domicile certificate vide order dated 14.3.2014. 17. On receipt of the inquiry report, the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, cancelled the residence/domicile certificate vide order dated 14.3.2014. 17. Counsel for the respondent No.5 has submitted that being aggrieved by the order of cancellation, the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 2680 of 2014 (M/B), which was decided vide order dated 3.4.2014, remanding the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, who was directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after issuing notice within a month and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 3.4.2014, a notice dated 25.4.2014 was issued to the petitioner and respondent No.5. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 appeared and putforth their version. The SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, thereafter, rejected the claim of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 14.3.2014, whereby petitioner's domicile certificate was cancelled. In these backgrounds, his submission is that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by concealing the material facts, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. We have examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 19. At the outset, it would be relevant to apt that learned Counsel for the parties have laid much emphasis upon the Government Order dated 18.2.2003, which pertains to the procedure for issuing the Domicile Certificate issued by the Competent Authority, therefore, it would be useful to refer the Government No.157/3-2003-77(11)/83, dated 18-2-2003, issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), laying down the following procedure for the issuing of Domicile Certificates by the competent authority: "1. Domicile Certificate shall be issued only for getting admission in educational institute or for employment. 2. The District Magistrate or any Addl. District Magistrate/SDM authorised by the DM shall be the competent officer to issue Domicile Certificates. 3. A Domicile Certificate in the State of Uttar Pradesh is issued to a person whose parents are permanent residents of the district, or to a person who has been residing in the district for a period of not less than 3 years. 4. A person who is in the Government Service or in the Non-Government Service, and whose job is transferable, shall get some relaxation in the laws. 4. A person who is in the Government Service or in the Non-Government Service, and whose job is transferable, shall get some relaxation in the laws. He/she can submit a copy of any of the following documents: (1) Certificate from Employer/Chairman, Gram Panchayat/Chairman, Nagar Panchayat (2) Ration Card (3) Driving License (4) Passport (5) Voter ID Card (6) PAN (Income Tax) (7) House Tax/Water Tax (8) Electricity Bill 5. The applicant has to apply for Domicile Certificate in Form-1 in duplicate. He/she should submit two photographs along with the application. One photograph will be pasted on the certificate, and the second will be kept for Government records. 6. The applicant has to submit verification letter in the prescribed format from any one of the following:- (9) Gazetted Officer (10) Member of Parliament (MP) (11) Member of legislative Assembly (MLA) (12) Chairman, Zila Panchayat (13) Chairman, Nagar Panchayat (14) Branch Manager, Nationalised Bank 7. Domicile Certificate shall be issued to the applicant within one month, provided all the formalities are in order." 20. As per the aforesaid Government Order No. 157/3-2003-77(11)/83 which was published on the 18th February 2003 by the State Government of UP provides some instructions along with the rules and regulations for issuance the domicile/residence certificate. As per clause-3 of the aforesaid Government Order, the certificate of domicile is only provided to those citizens whose parents are having their permanent residence/home in the Uttar Pradesh state of that particular district from where they want to apply for it. Apart from this the person living in the Uttar Pradesh from last 3 years and having permanent residence also has given the authority to obtain the domicile certificate. 21. The stand of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he is residing at Village Chintaura for the last five years and thus, qualified for the issuance of domicile certificate, therefore, the domicile certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was absolutely in accordance with Clause-3 of the Government Order dated 18.2.2013 as the petitioner resides in Village Chintaura for the last more than three years. Thus, the order dated 14.3.2014 as well as order dated 23.5.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, canceling the domicile certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner, are absolutely illegal and suffer from infirmity. 22. Thus, the order dated 14.3.2014 as well as order dated 23.5.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, canceling the domicile certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner, are absolutely illegal and suffer from infirmity. 22. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the domicile certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled by the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar as the petitioner obtained the domicile certificate on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. 23. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.5.2014 reveals that the order cancelling the domicile certificate dated 14.3.2014 was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 2680 (M/B) 2014. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 3.4.2014, while disposing of the writ petition, remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and directed him to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after issuing notice within a month and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order dated 10.4.2014 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 2680 (S/B) of 2014, notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar to the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 (complainant) requiring them to appear before him for putting their version on 2.5.2014. In response thereof, the petitioner appeared along with Advocate and submitted written statement and evidence in support of his claim before the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar. Respondent No.5 has also appeared before the SDM, Tanda and produced the copy of information obtained through Right to Information Act i.e. information from Regional Transport Officer, Ambedkar Nagar & information from Revenue Department. The SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, after examining the version of the parties and the evidence on record, has recorded finding that the petitioner did not produce any rent agreement or letter of agreement between the owner of the house and the petitioner which shows that the petitioner is residing at the rented house for the last five years. The SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, after examining the version of the parties and the evidence on record, has recorded finding that the petitioner did not produce any rent agreement or letter of agreement between the owner of the house and the petitioner which shows that the petitioner is residing at the rented house for the last five years. Further, the petitioner had produced the ration card of Village Chintaura, bearing No. 072790, in which the date of issuance of ration card has not been mentioned and Village Panchayat Officer/Issuing Officer of ration card though admitted the fact that the said ration card was issued by him but the issuance of date has not been disclosed by him, therefore, on account of non-mentioning the date of preparation of the ration card and the date of issuance of ration card, the period from which he is residing at Village Chintaura cannot be ascertained. In the ration card, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is doing agricultural work at village Chintaura but at Village Chintaura, the petitioner is not having any agricultural land. The petitioner did not produce any piece of evidence showing that he had ever made any effort for cancellation of his name from the ration card issued at his permanent residence i.e. Village Chandpur and Auraiya. Further, in the family (kutumb) register of Village Chandpur and Araiya, the name of petitioner, his wife and children are mentioned. In these backgrounds, the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has obtained the domicile certificate by concealing the facts and on the basis of forged documents. In these circumstances, the order dated 14.3.2014 cancelling the domicile certificate of the petitioner is perfectly just and proper and there is no illegality or infirmity. 24. On scrutiny of material on record, it comes out that the domicile certificate issued to the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner while moving application for issuance of domicile certificate has asserted in his application that he is residing at village Chintaura since the last five years, therefore, as per provisions of the Government Order dated 18.2.2003, the domicile certificate be granted to him. But the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, on inquiry and after examining the record viz. ration card, parivar register etc. But the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, on inquiry and after examining the record viz. ration card, parivar register etc. came to the conclusion that the documents produced by the petitioner at the time of issuance of domicile certificate were not genuine. It appears that the SDM, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar has recorded findings of fact on the basis of cogent material on record, which, in our view, are sound reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner and reitrated the order of cancellation of domicile certificate dated 14.3.2014. 25. The petitioner has failed to produce any documents, which establishes that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not germane and contrary to material record. 26. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merit, which is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.