Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1297 (BOM)

Amey Sitaram Shirodkar v. State Of Goa

2021-10-04

MANISH PITALE

body2021
JUDGMENT Manish Pitale, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this Writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 4/11/2020, issued by the respondent no.2-Mamlatdar rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of residence certificate for a period of 25 years. 3. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 passed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce a copy of his passport. According to the petitioner, such insistence of producing a copy of the passport was unreasonable, particularly, when the petitioner had placed on record sufficient documents pertaining to his date of birth certificate, secondary school certificate and other such documents to show his continuous residence for a period of more than 25 years up to the year 2008. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner joined a bank at Dubai on 24/3/2008 and that he was working in the said capacity in Dubai till September 2019. 4. Ms. A. Kamat, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 submitted that the said respondent was justified in issuing the impugned order, because the purpose for which the petitioner requires the residence certificate i.e. to pursue an application for issuance of excise licence, the requirement would be continuous residence of the petitioner for a period of 25 years in the State of Goa till the date of issuance of such certificate. Even otherwise, the respondent no.2 was well within his rights in insisting for a copy of the passport to verify the status of citizenship of the petitioner. 5. This Court has considered the rival contentions and the documents on record. The narrow scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India demonstrates that in order to interfere with the impugned order, this Court will have to come to a conclusion that the insistence of the respondent no.2 for the petitioner to produce a copy of his passport could be said to be unreasonable and that a positive direction is required to be issued to the Mamlatdar for issuance of residence certificate of 25 years. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not convinced that a case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. The petitioner is not justified in insisting on not producing a copy of the passport. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not convinced that a case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. The petitioner is not justified in insisting on not producing a copy of the passport. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 7. Nevertheless, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the respondent no.2 for grant of residence certificate for 25 years by producing a copy of his passport. The respondent no.2 shall consider such fresh application being submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned order dated 4/11/2020 and the order passed by this Court today.