W.P. No. 22951 of 2010 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2010. Case: Minor Prathiba rep. by father and Natural Guardian Sri. Sivaprasad Vs The Union Territory of Puducherry rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, The Director Centralised Admission Committee, Puducherry Engineering College Campus, The Regional Administrative Officer and The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue). Chennai (Madras) High Court
|Case Number:||W.P. No. 22951 of 2010 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2010|
|Party Name:||Minor Prathiba rep. by father and Natural Guardian Sri. Sivaprasad Vs The Union Territory of Puducherry rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, The Director Centralised Admission Committee, Puducherry Engineering College Campus, The Regional Administrative Officer and The Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue)|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: T. Murugesan, Sr. Counsel for Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Adv. And For Respondents: R. Syed Mustafa, Special Govt. Pleader|
|Judges:||T. Raja, J.|
|Judgement Date:||June 21, 2011|
|Court:||Chennai (Madras) High Court|
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. Whileso, 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 guildelines 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...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL