AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the fourth Respondent in his proceedings No. No.
206/PRATHIBA/STOM/T3/2010 dated 29.09.2010 to quash the same with consequential direction to the Respondents herein to issue the
Residence Certificate for 5 years as requested by the Petitioner.
Mr. T. Murugesan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is resident of Mahe and Sales Tax
Practitioner recognised by the Government of Puducherry, Commercial Taxes Department and further, he submitted that the Petitioner''s wife
Smitha is also resident of Mahe. While so ,the minor Petitioner Prathiba was born on 20.05.1993 in Shemy hospital, Thalassery, Mahe. The
Petitioner''s son K.P. Goutham was also born in Mahe and studying in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mahe. In this regard, the fourth Respondent,
the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue), Mahe has issued a Residence Certificate certifying that the Petitioner was resident of Mahe, living in Door No.
6/509, Chalakara dated 30.05.2003. In an effort to fortify his case, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner also mentioned that the
voters Identity card issued under the community health insurance scheme by the Government of Puducherry in the name of the Petitioner''s mother
Smitha also stand proof to support the case of the Petitioner that she is a resident of Mahe. It was further stated that the Petitioner has completed
her XII Standard by securing 92% marks in the Senior schools Certificate examination, conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE). While so, when the second Respondent issued the information bulletin regarding the admission to professional courses for the year 2010-
2011 stating that the person aspirating to apply for professional course should submit a Residence Certificate in terms of Clause 5.1.7. of the
bulletin, the Petitioner approached the fourth Respondent for issuance of a Residence Certificate by producing all necessary proofs for issuance of
a Residence Certificate along with earlier Residence Certificate issued by the very same Fourth Respondent on 30.05.2003. But the fourth
Respondent without appreciating any of the facts included in the earlier Certificate issued by him, wrongly issued the impugned order dated
24.06.2010/29.09.2010 stating that the father of the Petitioner owns a house at Mokeri, Panoor with address No. X/89, Kalyani Villas Mokeri,
Kannur District. Since no enquiry was conducted in this regard, aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner gave a representation to the third
Respondent, the Regional Administrative Officer, Mahe explaining her case in detail with several other documents to substantiate her claim that he
has been voluntarily residing for more than a decade yet the third Respondent by passing the impugned communication dated 30.06.2006 rejected
the request of the Petitioner for the issuance of Residence Certificate for five years. As the third Respondent has held that the Petitioner was not
residing in Mahe region for the past five continuous years, the Petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 14413 of 2010 before this Court and this
Court by order dated 25.08.2010 remanded the matter back to the Authorities for fresh disposal with a clear direction to the Respondent to
consider the case on the basis of G.O. Ms. 48 dated 12.12.2002 along with the guidelines No. 6260/C2/Rev/2003 dated 06.10.2003 and also in
the light of the documents to be produced on the side of the Petitioner by keeping in mind the judicial authorities cited by the Petitioner. Inspite of
the direction remanding the matter back, though the Petitioner made a fresh application to the fourth Respondent on 17.09.2010 along with
sufficient documents to prove the Petitioner''s residence in Mahe, after holding enquiry, the fourth Respondent rejected all the documents produced
by the Petitioner and finally refused to issue Residence Certificate to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has come before this
Court.
Therefore, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there was a ration card issued by the Revenue Authorities and
more so, a previous residential certificate issued by the fourth Respondent, all these documents, the fourth Respondent cannot simply brush aside,
more particularly his own previous residential certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner certifying that she was residing in Mahe for the past five
years. Secondly, it was contended that merely on the fact that the Petitioner was not a resident in Mahe and her father owned a house in Mokeri in
Kerala State, just because he is owning a house outside Mahe will not disentitle the right of residence in Mahe. Further, discrediting the birth
certificate of the Petitioner is absolutely illogical as there is no reason to give a false address in Mahe and on that basis, by forcibly argued that
when a Residence Certificate was already issued by the fourth Respondent in the year 2003 rejecting that certificate the fourth Respondent should
not have arbitrarily refused to consider the request of the Petitioner.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents. Basing on the counter Mr. R. Syedmustafa replied that as per the guideline No.
6260/C2/Rev/2003 dated 06.10.2003 coupled with G.O. Ms. 48 dated 12.12.2002 Revenue Department, Puducherry to issue Residence
Certificate in Union Territory of Puducherry, the actual and physical residence of the applicant is essential. The counter Affidavit further states that
a mere possession of evidences like Ration Card, EPIC or previous certificates, etc., are not the sole criteria for the issuance of Residence
Certificate because the applicant must be an ordinary resident of Mahe Region for the past 5 continuous years. Till that part is proved or
established beyond reasonable doubt, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Secondly, it was contended by the learned the Special
Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the Respondents that when G.O. Ms. 48 dated 12.12.2002, Revenue Department, Puducherry
contemplates two situations viz., a) Nativity by birth b) Nativity by continuous residence. The Petitioner has to satisfy the Authorities by his
physical stay in his place beyond establishing the fact that he had the intention to stay in that place for considerable length of time and mere stay in
places such as residential hostel would not amount to residence as the same is not a sole criterion for issuance of Residence Certificate. If a person
is born in the Union Territory of Puducherry and has been ordinarily residing within the Union Territory prior to the date of application and in order
to satisfy the criterion of ordinary resident, the person should have been staying either himself or with his family within the Union Territory of
Puducherry continuously with a clear intention of residing permanently and the applicant should have continuously been residing for the past five
years prior to the date of application. When the Petitioner submitted an application for Residence Certificate for five years for the purpose of
applying for admission to Professional courses through CENTAC on 11.06.2010, the Village Administrative Officer, Pandakkal and Chalakkara,
after personal enquiry with Thiru. Sivaprasad, the father of the Petitioner and after field enquiry on the residence status of the Petitioner, submitted
a Report on 16.06.2010 stating that she has not resided in the Mahe Region for the past five continuous years preceding the date of her application
viz., 11.6.2010. Further, the Report states that she is residing along with her parents at House No. 10/89, Kallyani Villa, Mokeri P.O., Panoor,
Kannur District, Kerala State. The said findings of the Village Administrative Officer were confirmed by the Revenue Inspector through the fourth
Respondent viz., the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue) Mahe who has rejected the request of the Petitioner stating the reasons thereof. Therefore, let
me see, whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent is legally sustainable. It is relevant to keep in mind one vital aspect, the CENTAC,
the second Respondent herein has issued information bulleting containing Clause 5.1.7. As per Clause 5.1.7, a candidate claiming admission under
this category should be resident of respective region for continuous period of five years preceding the date of application. Secondly, to claim
admission under special allocation for Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam, the candidates should have studied in the recognised schools
located in the respective regions continuously for 3 years, immediately preceding the qualifying examination. Mere stay in places such as residential
hostel would not amount to residence because they should produce Residence Certificate from the competent authority not below the rank of the
Deputy Tahsildar. The candidates should also enclose the necessary certificate in the prescribed format. Such Certificate should be obtained from
the Head of the Institution in which studied and countersigned by the respective Chief Educational Officers of Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe Regions
and the Regional Administrator of Yanam region and also they should enclose Residence Certificate issued by the Department of Revenue and
Disaster Management, not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar of respective regions, clearly indicating the addresses of residence. The Village
Administrative Officer, Pandakkal and Chalakkara has conducted an enquiry and after enquiry, a Report was also submitted. The report says that
the personal enquiry was also conducted on 28.09.2010 at 10 a.m. in the office of the fourth Respondent viz., Sub Taluk Office, Mahe. It is
noticed that most of the documents are recently issued hence the Respondent came to the conclusion that they do not have any valid proof to claim
that the Petitioner and her parents are residing in Mahe Region for the past five years preceding the date of application. On that basis, the request
of the Petitioner for issuance of Residence Certificate for five years was rejected based on enquiry.
The case of the Petitioner goes to say that as per Clause 2.6, the candidate or whose parents have been continuously residing in the Union
Territory for five years preceding the date of application are entitled to get the residence certificate as required under Clause 5.1.7. Therefore, it is
relevant to extract Clause 2.6 and 5.1.7. of Information Bulletin.
2.6. Candidates belonging to Pondicherry UT are eligible for admission to all the degree courses. A candidate is considered as a Pondicherry UT
candidate if he/she satisfies at least one of the following domicile criteris.
A) Those candidates or whose parents have been residing continuously in the Pondicherry UT at least for 5 years immediately before the date of
application.
b) Those who have passed SSLC/HSC or any other public examination and for that purpose had undergone academic studies continuously for 5
successive classes immediately preceding the qualifying examination (including the year of the qualifying examination) in recognized educational
institution(s) located in Pondicherry UT and having their residence in Pondicherry UT for 5 years continuously during that period.
5.1.7. Candidates claiming admission under this category should be residents of the respective region, for a continuous period of five years,
preceding the date of application.
As per the above clause, to claim admission under special allocation from Puducherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam regions, candidates should have
studied in the recognized schools located in the respective regions continuously for three years, immediately preceding the qualifying examination
(including the year of the qualifying examination), mere stay in places such as residential hostel would not amount to residents. They should produce
residence certificate from the competent authority not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar.
Indeed, the above issue has been considered by this Court in W.A. No. 1151 of 2006, dated 29.08.2007, wherein it was held that though a
candidate gets a residence certificate in terms of Claus 2.6 that she stayed in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, while studying in any of the
institution situated in the Territory of Pondicherry as Hosteler, unless a residence certificate is issued certifying that she is resident of Mahe Region,
she is not entitled to get the benefit of special regional allocation under Clause 5.1.7. Therefore, though the Petitioner has received earlier a
residence certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities, subsequently, VAO and other Revenue Authorities have verified her permanent residential
status under the Region of Pondicherry and finally came to the conclusion that she is not permanent resident of Pondicherry, therefore, no
interference can be called for against the impugned order.
As per guideline No. 6260/C2/Rev/2003 dated 06.10.2003 read with G.O. Ms. 48 dated 12.12.2002 , Revenue Department, Puducherry for
issuance of Residence Certificate in Union Territory of Puducherry, the actual and physical residence of the applicant is necessary. Therefore, mere
possession of Ration card, EPIC, or previous certificate, etc., cannot be considered as sole criteria for the issuance of Residence Certificate.
When a ration card is issued by the Revenue authorities and moreso, when a Residence Certificate is also issued even that was also rejected by the
Respondents by holding that to get continuous Residence Certificate, a person demanding Residence Certificate should be actually and physically
residing in a particular place. This stand may be correct for the reason that the Government of Pondicherry is spending about 15 crores per year
towards reimbursement of tuition fees for students studying in private college through Government quota.
Therefore, when the Union Territory of Puducherry consists of four regions Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam, the regions of Puducherry
and Karaikal are surrounded by the State of Tamilnadu and Mahe is surrounded by Kerala and Yanam is surrounded by Andhra Pradesh,
generally the residents of the neighbouring states want to get the Residence Certificate of Union Territory of Puducherry so that the benefits
conferred by the Government of Puducherry to its residents can be availed by them. On that basis, the Revenue Authority should be very strict in
issuing the Residence Certificate. Further, 85% of the seats are reserved for the residents of Puducherry and 15 % of seats were left open to the
students of the other states. In view of that, the Petitioner has to satisfy Clause 5.1.7 by proving that she has not only stayed in the hostel of the
college or institution in which she studied in Union Territory of Puducherry, she should also equally prove that she has got residence in the Union
Territory of Puducherry. Under these circumstances, when the application was made, the Revenue Authorities had conducted physical verification
and finally, it was found that the Petitioner''s mother Smitha''s name was included in the ration card and in the electoral roll when she was native of
Mahe, prior to the year 2003 but her husband''s name Sivaprasad and daughter''s name Selvi Prathiba K.P. along with sons name K.P. Gautham
were not included in the family ration card. Further, the Petitioner''s father''s name was also not included in the electoral roll for Mahe region
conducted by Civil Service Authorities, Mahe. The Enumerator also reported that Tmt. Smitha is not residing on the Vazhayil House Chalakkara,
Mahe. Therefore, they have also initiated to delete her name in the ration card bearing No. 3308/MECS-06. Hence, it is not open to the Petitioner
to say that they have been issued with ration card and that ration card has been ignored wrongly for issuance of Residence Certificate. Yet another
reason cited by the Respondent in the impugned order that the Partition Deed No. 562/2004 dated 30.06.2001 registered in the Sub Registry,
Mahe shows that the mother of the Petitioner has no right over the property viz., the house mentioned in the B schedule of the property document
in Valayil Chalakkara. As per the above document, Smt. Chirammal Karayi Santha, the mother of K.P. Smitha has agreed that she did not require
any share and has been permitted to live in the above house, till her death. This also clearly shows that the mother of the Petitioner has no right
over the house from 30.06.2004 onwards. Only based on the above said documents, the Petitioner Selvi Prathiba got admission in Jawahar
Navodaya Vidayalaya, Mahe. Subsequently, a Residence Certificate was issued on 30.05.2003 verifying that Selvi Prathiba, minor Petitioner was
a resident having residential address at 6/509, Chalakkara. But subsequently there is no proof to show that the Petitioner has resided in the region
of Mahe. Further, the enquiry held also reveals that her family lives in Mokeri of Thalassery District of Kannur District of Kerala State.
Another vital aspect to be taken note of herein is that when the Petitioner studied in Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya, Pandakkal, Mahe, she
stayed at Jawahar Navodaya Vidayalaya, Pandakkal for the past 7 years, but she was not issued with Permanent Integrated Certificate for that
period. During February 2008, when her application for Permanent Integrated Certificate was rejected by the then Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue),
Mahe stating that her parents are not residing in Mahe region and she alone was staying there for the purpose of studying her stay in the hostel
alone will not entitle her for Permanent Integrated Certificate and that rejection order refusing her Residential Certificate issued in the year February
2008 has not been challenged till now. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has not preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, the
Deputy Collector (Revenue), Mahe. Therefore, I do not find any substantial reason to allow the writ petition when the Petitioner has already
suffered a rejection order in February 2008 passed by the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Mahe, after accepting the rejection order, the Petitioner
cannot once again challenge the present order, which is a consequential one. On that basis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ
petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.