SNIGDHA MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a student who has not passed the 10th standard from the institution in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner, however, has passed 12th standard from an institution in the State of maharashtra. The petitioner wanted to appear for the MHT-CET-2006. Clause 4. 9 of the application for appearance provides as under:-

(2.) The petitioner, accordingly, had applied for the domicile certificate in terms of the resolution of the respondents-State by application dated February 10, 2006 through her legal guardiance. That came to be rejected and consequently, the present petition challenging the said order. The reason given is that the petitioner has not completed 10 years residence in the State of maharashtra in terms of the Government resolution and the instructions. Clause 4 of part 3 reads as under:-

(3.) From the above, it would be clear that even if a person applying for domicile, does not have residence of 10 years, it is still open to apply under Clause 4. As to when a person can be said to have changed domicile from one place to another would be a pure question of fact depending on the facts of each case. The documentary evidence supplied has not been considered on 3 the basis that the applicant and his daughter's birth place is outside the State of maharashtra and permanent stay is less than 10 years. Residence of 10 years is not the sole crietaria for granting domicile certificate as can be seen from the resolution nor the place of birth. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by Smt. Bharati m. Kale, reference has been made to the said G. R, and the instructions. It is also set out that the petitioner's claim for domicile is not bonafide as the residence is temporary in nature for the purpose of service, trade or profession.