Madras High Court

Minor Gaurav Murali vs The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar on 13 May, 2024

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                                                               WP(MD)No.10377 of 2024

                 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                      Reserved on : 30.04.2024

                                     Pronounced on : 13.05.2024

                                              CORAM

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                     WP(MD)No.10377 of 2024
                                              and
                                  WMP(MD)Nos.9352 & 9353 of 2024

                Minor Gaurav Murali
                Rep.by his Natural Guardian
                Father Mr.Murali Chelliah
                Residing at
                B/604, Serenity, Reheja Reflection,
                Thakur Village, Kandivali East,
                Mumbai,
                Maharashtra – 400 101.                             ... Petitioner

                                                   Vs.


                1.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
                  Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.

                2.The Revenue Inspector,
                  Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.

                3.The Village Administrative Officer,
                  Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.                 ... Respondents


                Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
                records culminating in the order dated 06.04.2024 in Application
                No.TN 320240331689 passed by the first respondent and to quash

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/8
                                                                      WP(MD)No.10377 of 2024

                the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue
                Nativity Certificate to the petitioner and thereby render justice.


                          For Petitioner          : Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam

                          For Respondents         : Mr.G.Vairam Santhosh,
                                                    Additional Government Pleader
                                                       for R1 to R3



                                                    ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner is a minor. His father and natural guardian

is Thiru.Murali Chelliah. Murali Chelliah was born in Chithoor,

Musiri Taluk, Trichy District on 04.04.1970. He did his schooling

in Tamil Nadu. He also did his graduation and post graduation in

this State. He got married to Ms.Gomathi Ponnangan. She is also

a native of Pollachi, Coimbatore District. The couple were

working in the Shipping Corporation of India Limited at Mumbai.

The petitioner (Guarav Murali) was born in Mumbai on

06.11.2006. He is studying in Mumbai. The petitioner intends to

apply for pursuing higher studies in Tamil Nadu. He is in need of

Nativity Certificate. An online application was submitted on

15.03.2024 in this regard. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Musiri

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Taluk rejected the application. The application was resubmitted

on 31.03.2024. On 06.04.2024, the first respondent issued the

impugned order stating that Nativity Certificate cannot be issued

because the petitioner is not residing as on date and his place of

birth is Mumbai. Challenging the said order, the present writ

petition came to be filed.

3.The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res

integra. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a

compilation of judgments in this regard. They are as follows :

1. Muthuram Subbu v. the District Collector – WP(MD)No.4458

of 2024

2. Swathi Radhakrishnn v. the District Collector – WP(MD)No.

20516 of 2022

3. Shwetha Suresh v. the Tahsildar – WP No.23836 of 2021

4. Mior N.Karunya Vignesh v. The Union Territory of

Pudhucherry – WP No.20765 of 2019

5. Minor Nivedita v. The District Collector – WP No.5230 of

6. Varsha Parappa Totagi v. The District Collector – WP No.

15393 of 2020

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. Vardhini Parthasarathy v. The State of Tamil Nadu – WP No.

16292 of 2020.

In WP(MD)No.20516 of 2022 (Swathi Radha Krishnan v. The

District Collector), it was held as follows :

“Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The writ petitioner was born in Kuwait on 06.07.2004. She had her entire schooling in the State of Kuwait. After completing her schooling, the petitioner wanted to join MBBS course. She had already written NEET. The petitioner requires Nativity Certificate for joining in MBBS course under the Tamil Nadu colleges. When she approached the second respondent, the second respondent rejected her request on the ground that she was born in Kuwait and that she stayed therein up to 2020 and that her parents have also been at Kuwait. The second respondent had rejected the petitioner's request primarily on the ground that neither the petitioner nor her parents resided continuously in Tamil Nadu for the preceding five years. The second respondent had obviously gone by the terms of G.O.Ms.No.2388 dated 27.11.1990 issued by the Revenue Department.

3.The rejection order is put to challenge in this writ petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order of the second respondent cannot be faulted.

5.I am not able to appreciate the stand taken by the second respondent. In fact the issue on hand is no longer res integra. A learned Judge of Madras High Court vide Order dated 11.11.2020 made in W.P.No.15393 of 2020 ( Varsha Parappa Totagi V. The District Collector, Chennai ) had already decided the issue. It was held that merely because a person has been absent from the State on account of employment, he or she will not lose his or her permanent residence in the State. In the case on hand, the petitioner's father went to Kuwait only for employment purposes. The petitioner happened to be born in Kuwait because her parents resided in Kuwait. Even though the petitioner had done her entire schooling in Kuwait, it is difficult to conclude that the family had domiciled in Kuwait. When the parents are from Tamil Nadu and the grandparents are also from Tamil Nadu, the petitioner can only be called as a Tamilian. I hold that the petitioner is a native of Tamil Nadu. It is obvious that the expression “ nativity ” denotes the roots on which a person is anchored.

6.In that view of the matter, the petitioner can only be a native of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid order dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11.11.2020 made in W.P.No. 15393 of 2020 ( Varsha Parappa Totagi V. The District Collector, Chennai), the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. The second respondent is directed to issue Nativity Certificate, certifying that the petitioner hails from Srirangam Taluk. The second respondent shall issue the Nativity Certificate to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.This writ petition stands allowed.”

4.All the other cases have also been decided in favor of the

applicants on the same lines. They are squarely applicable to the

case on hand. Merely because the petitioner was born at Mumbai,

that cannot be a ground for rejecting the petitioner's application

for Nativity Certificate. The petitioner's father was very much

born in Musiri Taluk. The petitioner is obviously a Tamilian. His

roots are traceable to the State of Tamil Nadu. His mother is also

a Tamilian. She was born in Pollachi. The records enclosed in

the typed set of papers convincingly demonstrate the same. In

these circumstances, rejection of the petitioner's application is

incorrect and runs counter to the aforesaid rulings. The