# Smt. Laxmi Tiwari v. The State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 468 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-04-20 - **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Rajan Roy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-laxmi-tiwari-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-43654 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote The domicile certificate which was granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by an order dated 26 March 2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda, the second respondent. 4 All. Smt. Laxmi Tiwari Vs The State Of U.P. & Ors. 469 In the present case, that the domicile certificate which was granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In our view, the provisions of Section 5 (2) and Section 6 must receive a purposive interpretation. The cancellation of a domicile certificate amounts in law to the rejection of the application for the grant of domicile certificate. While cancelling a domicile certificate, what essentially the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does in such a case, is to hold that the applicant is not entitled to the domicile certificate for the reasons indicated in the order of cancellation. Hence, both as a matter of fact and law, the consequence of the cancellation of a domicile certificate is to lead to the rejection of the application for the issuance of a domicile certificate. Once the matter is considered in this perspective, we are of the view that an appeal would be maintainable against the cancellation of a domicile certificate by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 2011. For these reasons, we relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under Section 6 before the Collector and District Magistrate. Hence, such an appeal shall be considered in accordance with law, subject to the observations made above. In the event that the petitioner files an appeal within one month from today, the appeal shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of the appeal. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: ## Text 468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 29. It has become necessary for the Court to issue this direction in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that valuable time of the Court is not wasted in thoroughly frivolous cases which have no bearing on matters of public interest. Habitual litigants are increasingly flooding the Courts with frivolous petitions. PILs are filed to cover almost every topic under the sun. Many of them are exercises for garnering publicity. Some are intended to stall public projects, often at the behest of a competitor. This tends to destroy the sanctity of PILs as a powerful instrument of securing socio-economic justice to the marginalised and underprivileged. The time of the Court is exhausted in dealing with frivolous cases with no genuine cause of public concern. This pernicious tendency has to be firmly stopped by providing orders for anticipatory costs. This is a means of securing an eventual award of costs in the case of a habitual litigant who, as here, has a track record of misconceived filings. Unless this is done, the Court would become a helpless spectator to the loss of public time and resources in dealing with motivated litigation. When lakhs of cases await judicial decision - including those of undertrials and convicts languishing in jail for years - the Court cannot allow the institution of administering justice to become a hapless victim of frivolous filings. Parliament, or the State legislature, may have to step in to legislate on the malady of vexatious litigation. That is a legislative function. In the meantime, realistic costs must be deployed if the process of the Court is to be protected against litigious exploitation. 30. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition shall stand dismissed, with costs quantified at Rs 25,000/- which shall be payable to the U P State Legal Services Authority. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. Misc. Bench No.- 8288 Of 2016 Smt. Laxmi Tiwari ...Petitioner Versus The State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Vivek Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. The domicile certificate which was granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by an order dated 26 March 2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda, the second respondent. 4 All. Smt. Laxmi Tiwari Vs The State Of U.P. & Ors. 469 In the present case, that the domicile certificate which was granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In our view, the provisions of Section 5 (2) and Section 6 must receive a purposive interpretation. The cancellation of a domicile certificate amounts in law to the rejection of the application for the grant of domicile certificate. While cancelling a domicile certificate, what essentially the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does in such a case, is to hold that the applicant is not entitled to the domicile certificate for the reasons indicated in the order of cancellation. Hence, both as a matter of fact and law, the consequence of the cancellation of a domicile certificate is to lead to the rejection of the application for the issuance of a domicile certificate. Once the matter is considered in this perspective, we are of the view that an appeal would be maintainable against the cancellation of a domicile certificate by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 2011. For these reasons, we relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under Section 6 before the Collector and District Magistrate. Hence, such an appeal shall be considered in accordance with law, subject to the observations made above. In the event that the petitioner files an appeal within one month from today, the appeal shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of the appeal. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. & Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.) 1. The domicile certificate which was granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by an order dated 26 March 2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda, the second respondent. Under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2011, the legislature has provided that the designated officer shall provide the service notified under Section 3 to the eligible person. Under Section 5, a provision has been made for the commencement of the stipulated time limit within which the service has to be provided. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5, the designated officer, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) shall, within the stipulated time limit either provide service or reject the application and in the case of rejection of application, must record the reasons in writing and intimate the applicant. Section 6 provides for the remedy of an appeal to any person, whose application is rejected under sub-section (2) of Section 5 or who is not provided with the service within the stipulated time limit. 2. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3, a notification has been issued by the State Government on 15 January 2011. The notification, inter alia, provides that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall be the designated officer for deciding issues pertaining to domicile certificates. The first appeal lies to the District Magistrate, while a further appeal is provided to the Divisional Commissioner. 470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 3. In the present case, we note from the record that the domicile certificate which was granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In our view, the provisions of Section 5 (2) and Section 6 must receive a purposive interpretation. The cancellation of a domicile certificate amounts in law to the rejection of the application for the grant of domicile certificate. While cancelling a domicile certificate, what essentially the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does in such a case, is to hold that the applicant is not entitled to the domicile certificate for the reasons indicated in the order of cancellation. Hence, both as a matter of fact and law, the consequence of the cancellation of a domicile certificate is to lead to the rejection of the application for the issuance of a domicile certificate. 4. Once the matter is considered in this perspective, we are of the view that an appeal would be maintainable against the cancellation of a domicile certificate by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 2011. 5. The object and purpose of enacting the law was to provide a stipulated time limit for the grant of service of a notified nature and to provide a remedy where service was either not granted or the request for the service was rejected. 6. Having regard to the object and purpose and having due regard to the interpretation of Section 5 (2) of the Ahiniyam, 2011, we are of the view that an appeal would be maintainable. 7. For these reasons, we relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under Section 6 before the Collector and District Magistrate. Hence, such an appeal shall be considered in accordance with law, subject to the observations made above. In the event that the petitioner files an appeal within one month from today, the appeal shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of the appeal. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. Writ A No.- 9762 Of 1985 Hari Shanker Pandey ...Petitioner Versus Union of India ...Respondent Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Tej Pal, Sri Raj Kumar, Sri S.P. Singh