Madras High Court

J.Sunil vs The Inspector General Of Police on 9 December, 2021

                                                                               WP No.8356 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 09-12-2021

                                                        CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 WP No.8356 of 2016
                                                       And
                                                 WMP No.7410 of 2016


                     J.Sunil                                ..        Petitioner

                                                           vs.


                     1.The Inspector General of Police,
                       Puducherry Police Department,
                       Head Quarters,
                       Puducherry.

                     2.The Tahsildar,
                       Villianur Taluk Office,
                       Villianur,
                       Puducherry.                          ..        Respondents



                                  Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
                     calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings
                     No.201/TOV/A2/Certificates/2015-16 dated 12.01.2016 and quash the same

                     1/14


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 WP No.8356 of 2016

                     as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to issue Residence/
                     Nativity Certificate and Nationality Certificate to the petitioner within the
                     time frame fixed by this Court and further direct the first respondent to
                     appoint the petitioner in the post of Home Guard.


                                  For Petitioner                  : Mr.L.Chandrakumar for
                                                                    Mr.K.Sasindran

                                  For Respondents                 : Mr.J.Kumaran,
                                                                    Additional Government Pleader
                                                                    (Puducherry)

                                                       ORDER

The proceedings of the second respondent-Tahsildar dated

12.01.2016 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition and a

direction is also sought for to issue Residence/Nativity Certificate and

Nationality Certificate to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner belongs to Muslim Community and falls

under Most Backward Class. The petitioner has completed SSLC and

enrolled his name in the Puducherry Employment Exchange. A Notification

was issued in the year 2015, inviting applications for recruitment to the post

of Home Guard in Puducherry Police Department and the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

submitted an application.

3. The petitioner is bound to submit Residence Certificate for

the purpose of securing appointment. Thus, he has submitted an application

to the second respondent for issuance of Residence Certificate. However,

the said application of the petitioner was rejected in the impugned order

dated 12.01.2016. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present

writ petition.

4. The petitioner states that he furnished 9 documents to

establish that he is the resident of Villianur and therefore, he is entitled for

the Residence Certificate.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the

petitioner submitted his Birth Certificate, School Certificate, Electoral

Photo Identity Card, Ration Card, Aadhar Card, Community Certificate and

earlier Residence Certificate etc. In spite of that, the application of the

petitioner was rejected by the second respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

6. Earlier, the petitioner filed WP No.39701 of 2015 and this

Court passed an order on 17.12.2015, directing the second respondent to

pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioner,

within a period of one week from the date of receipt of that order.

Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted on 07.01.2016 at 04.00 P.M., and

the petitioner also attended the enquiry conducted by the second respondent

and filed additional documentary evidences.

7. Contrarily, the first respondent has relied upon the

documents collected by the Village Administrative Officer and rejected the

application. When the Birth Certificate and other required Certificates are

produced, the Authorities Competent ought to have considered the case of

the petitioner for the purpose of grant of Residence Certificate. The

petitioner was born and brought up at Puducherry and completed his School

Education and was earlier issued with the Residence Certificate. Thus there

is no reason whatsoever to reject the application for grant of Residence

Certificate.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment

of this Court dated 29.06.2012 passed in WP No.10905 of 2012, wherein

this Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to pass fresh

orders in the light of the documents produced by the petitioner in that writ

petition.

9. In another judgment of this Court dated 21.09.2020 passed

in WP No.12354 of 2016 also, this Court considered the case of the

petitioner therein and directed the respondents to issue the Nativity

Certificate. Relying on these judgments, the learned counsel for the

petitioner reiterated that the documents furnished by the petitioner also to be

considered in entirety and the Residence Certificate is to be issued in favour

of the petitioner.

10. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

objected the said contentions of the petitioner by stating that in the case of

the petitioner, no doubt the Authorities have received the documents from

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

the petitioner and all those documents were considered by the Competent

Authorities. There are candidates, who all are possessing Ration Cards,

Voter/Electoral Identity Cards in two States. Therefore, the Puducherry

Government has taken a decision that the Residence Certificate shall be

issued to the candidates ordinarily residing for five years continuously for

the purpose issuing the Residence Certificate.

11. In this context, the Authorities have to conduct an enquiry

before issuing the Residence Certificate and there are many number of

bogus Certificates are being produced only for the purpose of getting public

appointments in the Government of Puducherry. To avoid duplications and

in order to provide appointments only to the genuine residents of

Puducherry, the Government of Puducherry issued guidelines and

instructions, so as to ensure that the Residence Certificates are issued only

to persons, who all are residing for about five years ordinarily within the

Union Territory of Puducherry. This being the guidelines and instructions

issued by the Government of Puducherry, the case of the petitioner is to be

considered with reference to the Rules in force.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

12. Pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner, the

Village Administrative Officer of Kunichempet Revenue Village, conducted

an enquiry The Village Administrative Officer collected some documents to

establish that the name of the petitioner as well as his family members are

available in the Electoral Voters List of Vanur Assembly Constituency

within the State of Tamil Nadu. There are some other documents available

to establish that the family members of the petitioner are having similar

documents in the State of Tamil Nadu also.

13. In the context of the guidelines issued by the Puducherry

Government, the application submitted by the petitioner before the

Competent Authority as well as the deliberation made by the Authorities are

to be considered. The findings of the second respondent reveals that the

Village Administrative Officer of Villianur reported that on field enquiry

the house was constructed on a plot issued under Land Grant Rules, 1975

and presently occupied by one Thiru Mohammed Basha, S/o.Ibrahim Shah.

In support of his claim the said Thiru.Mohammed Basha issued a letter and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

annexed the photo copy of Aadhaar Card, Family Ration Card, EPIC of

Thiru Mohammed Basha and LGR plot issued vide No.2240/2000 by the

Directorate of Survey and Land Records, Puducherry in R.S.No.200/11 of

Villianur Revenue Village. Therefore, on enquiry itself the Village

Administrative of Villianur orally conveyed the application could not be

entertained. Further, Thiru Mohammed Basha was residing along with his

family in the address No.64, Perambai Road, for many years not the

applicant or his family.

14. On perusal of the records and on field enquiry, the house

located at No.29, First Cross, A.R.R.Nagar, Sulthanpet is owned by one

Thiru.Nazeer Ahamed. The house was presently occupied by a tenant

namely Tmt.M.Faritha Begam, W/o.Mohammed Sherif and her family

members. The electricity consumption demand bill for the month of June

2015 was issued in the name Thiru Nazeer Ahamed the owner of the house

and the LPG connection bill issued by HP Gas Agencies was in the name of

the present occupier Thiru Mohammed Sherif and the staement filed by the

present occupier Tmt.Faritha Begam, W/o.Mohammed Sherif also confirms

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

the petitioner Thiru Sunil and his family was residing in the said address.

On further enquiry conducted it was found that the petitioner and his family

members are residing in their own RCC building at Perambai Road,

Perambai, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District.

15. The Village Administrative Officer of Perambai Revenue

Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu issued a Certificate dated

08.01.2016 in which it was stated that the family of the petitioner Thiru

Sunil was residing in a pucca RCC building situated in Re-Survey Number

167/13 of Perambai Revenue Village having an extent of 720 Sq. feet (Plot

No.41) at Perambai Road, Perambai for more than 5 years and it is

registered in the name of the petitioner's mother Tmt.Loganayaki @ Anis

Fathima. The Encumbrance Certificate issued at Sub Registrar Office,

Vanur also mentioned the said Re-Survey Number in the name of

Tmt.Loganayaki @ Anis Fathima. Therefore, the petitioner Thiru Sunil and

his family were residing in Perambai Revenue Village of Tamil Nadu not in

Puducherry Region. The applicant and his family obtained Certificates by

furnishing false information as they were not ordinarily residing in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

Puducherry Region.

16. The Puducherry Government issued guidelines in clear

terms that the Competent Authorities should strictly adhere to the

instructions while deciding the residence of the applicants. The instructions

read as under:-

“The actual and physical residence of the Applicant/Parent/ Guardian is essential. But, mere possession of evidences like Ration Card, EPIC Card or previous Certificate etc., are not the sole criteria for issuance of the Residence Certificate.

At the same time, such evidences should not be totally ignored. After detailed enquiry, it is found that such evidences are false or obtained on false representation of facts, immediate action has to be taken by the Certificate Issuing Authorities (Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar) to inform the appropriate Authorities to cancel them. It shall also be brought to the knowledge of the concerned Deputy Collector (Revenue) / Joint Secretary (Revenue) for follow up action.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.8356 of 2016

17. The field enquiry conducted by the Authorities Competent

reveals that the petitioner is not ordinarily residing within the territory of

Puducherry. The factual findings made by the Competent Authorities after

conducting the field inspection with reference to documents is to be relied

upon and therefore, the petitioner could not able to establish that he was

ordinarily residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory

of Puducherry for the purpose of getting a Residence Certificate to secure

employment in the Government of Puducherry.

18. This Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the

procedures followed by the respondents and further the decision taken as it

was taken after conducting the field inspection and providing an