Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. During the hearing of the petition, it also  emerged that on receipt of the notice, respondent  No.1   forwarded   reply   and   clearly   informed   the  petitioner that on scrutiny it was found that the  Domicile   Certificate   was   procured   by   submitting  fake documents and the authority, who issued the  said certificate, had itself cancelled the same.  The  said  reply  was forwarded  by respondent   No.1  in November 2006. 

13. In  the  petition,   the  petitioner  had  alleged  that   in   August   2010,   he   was   informed   by   the  District Magistrate that he should approach Court  for revival of the certificate.  

Annexed   hereto   and   marked   as   ANNEXURE­R/1  is the copy of the said advertisement dated  January 2004. Annexed hereto and marked as  ANNEXURE­R/2   is   the   copy   of   the   letter  dated 08th  March, 2004 addressed by office  of respondent no. 1 herein, the Mamalatdar,  Gandhinagar by letter dated 10/03/2004 was  pleased   to   inform   the   Deputy   Inspector  General   of   Police,   CRPF,   Gandhinagar   that  the   said   certificate   was   procured   by  producing false documents and therefore the  same   to   be   treated   as   cancelled.   Annexed  hereto   and   marked   as   ANNEXURE­R/3   is   the  copy   of   the   letter   dated   10/03/2004  addressed by Mamalatdar, Gandhinagar to the  office of respondent no. 1 herein.