IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 316 of 2006 (M/B) Reena Saini d/o Sri Vijaypal Saini, R/o Village- Lavva, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar (Uttaranchal) …….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. UP Zila Adhikari Roorkee, District Haridwar ……Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kailash Tiwari, Counsel for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kailash Tiwari, counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent no. 2 to issue a domicile certificate to the petitioner, considering her permanent resident of State of Uttaranchal. ii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. From the application (Annexure 4), we gather that the petitioner has applied for domicile certificate on 13.03.2006. This petition was filed on 22.03.2006. 4. Thus, it is apparent that the petition has been filed in undue haste without giving reasonable time to the authorities to pass appropriate orders on her application. 5. In this view of the matter, we decline to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to challenge the order to be passed by the authorities on her application by filing an appropriate petition. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 23.03.2006 23.03.2006 A