HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29470 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mirzapur by which petitioner's domicile certificate has been cancelled on the ground that it has been obtained by fraud. 3. A short submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order cancelling the domicile certificate of the petitioner is based upon some enquiry report conducted by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Mirzapur. It is submitted that neither enquiry report dated 12.08.2025 has been given to the petitioner nor petitioner was given any notice or opportunity of hearing by the authority before passing the impugned order, therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that elaborate reasons have been given by the authority in concluding that petitioner has obtained domicile certificate by playing fraud. In such view of the fact, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that domicile certificate has been issued to the petitioner on 06.12.2022, copy of which is appearing on page 54 of the writ petition, and same has been cancelled on the allegation that petitioner has obtained it by playing fraud. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prem Prakash Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Krishna Kant .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Once a charge of fraud is levelled against petitioner, the authority should have at least given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to rebut the allegations made against him before passing the impugned order. 7. In the instant case, perusal of impugned order reflects that neither the enquiry report of Tehsildar dated 12.08.2025, which is the basis of passing the impugned order, has been given to the petitioner nor petitioner was afforded any notice or opportunity of hearing by the authority before passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has made his best endeavour to demonstrate that petitioner was given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, but he could not indicate the same from the records. 9. For the reasons given above, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 cancelling the domicile certificate of the petitioner with liberty to the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Officer/S.D.M., Sadar, Mirzapur to pass fresh order after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after supplying all the materials which he wants to rely upon against the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. October 9, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 29470 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad