Madras High Court

E.Murugan vs The District Collector on 26 June, 2025

Author: N.Anand Venkatesh

Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh

                                                                                       WP No. 13294 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 26-06-2025

                                                         CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                               WP No. 13294 of 2025

                1. E.Murugan
                S/o.Ellappan, No.V-1, V Block,
                Govt.Staff Quarters, Lawspet,
                Puducherry

                                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                              Vs

                1. The District Collector
                Government Of Puducherry,
                Puducherry

                2.The Sub Collector(Revenue) South
                O/o.Office Of The Sub Collector,
                South, Villianur, Puducherry

                3.The Tashildar-cum-Executive
                Magistrate
                Taluk Office, Villianur, Puducherry

                4.The Tahsildar-cum-Executive
                Magistrate
                Taluk Office, Oulgaret, Puducherry



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:47 pm )
                                                                                            WP No. 13294 of 2025


                                                                                            Respondent(s)


                PRAYER
                To call for the records of the 2nd respondent order No.3/899/SCRS/B7/Cert-
                                                                                rd
                Appeal /2025-656 dated 12.03.2025, confirming the order of the 3 respondent
                in No.884/TOV/TAH/Cert/2024, dated 04.03.2025 and quash the same and
                consequently, direct the respondents to issue residence certificate to the
                petitioner.

                                   For Petitioner(s):       Mr. D. Senthil Kumar

                                   For Respondent(s):       Mr.R.Sreedhar
                                                            Additional Government Pleader for R1-4

                                                              ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of nd rd the 2 respondent dated 12.03.2025, which was confirmed by the 3 respondent

through proceedings dated 04.03.2025, and seeking a consequential direction to

the respondent to issue a residence certificate.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was originally residing along with

his parents at Sedarapet, Puducherry. In the year 2000, there was an accidental

fire, and as a result, the house was damaged. The petitioner thereafter started

living at Government staff quarters, Lawspet, Puducherry. On 02.12.2007,

M.Pavithra was born, and she did her entire schooling at Puducherry. The

petitioner's daughter wanted to study MBBS and she was preparing for NEET th UG, 2025. The 4 respondent was insisting that a residence certificate must be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:47 pm )

submitted for the purpose of submitting the application and for getting

admission in the UG Medical course. Accordingly, an application was submitted

by the petitioner, which came to be rejected by the 3rd respondent through

proceedings dated 04.03.2025, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent

through proceedings dated 12.03.2025.

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions

in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder,

“ 6. I humbly submit that the petitioner and the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Villianur were directed to appear on 06.03.2025 for a personal hearing along with all necessary documents/records in support of their claim. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Villianur has reported that the petitioner claimed that his original native place is Poraiyur, Puducherry, he neither produced any document to substantiate his claim nor identified location of residence so as to enquire with local residents to ascertain the native place.

7. I humbly submit that the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Villianur reported that the petitioner's native place is Poothurai Village, Tamil Nadu, which is adjacent to Puducherry. Further, the petitioner's elder sister along with her husband settled in Sedarapet Revenue Village by occupying a G.P land in Muthamizh Nagar, Sedarapet.

After the demise of her husband, the petitioner's elder sister shifted to her native village of Poothurai Village, Tamil Nadu and later on, was found dead in a well at Poothurai. The GP land occupied by her at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:47 pm )

Sedarapet Village was regularised to her parents vide LGR.No.418/2007 only in the year 2007 and now it is a vacant land. This site is utilized only for the purpose of maintaining documents in Puducherry neither the petitioner nor his parents have never been a resident in Sedarapet prior to the cut-off date of 19.02.2001.

8. I humbly subrnit that the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Villianur has reported that the petitioner's parents are permanent residents of Poothurai Village Tamil Nadu and his mother is still residing in Poothurai Village, Tamil Nadu. Further, the petitioner has maintained his Voter ID (EPIC) bearing No.DSK1362110 till the year 2017 in Poothurai Village. The petitioner married in the year 2006 and even after marriage the petitioner and his family were residing in Poothurai village Tamil Nadu and not in Sedarapet Revenue Village as claimed by the petitioner.

9. I humbly submit that the petitioner is eligible for issue of residence certificate as the petitioner is residing in the U.T. of Puducherry for the past five years in Lawspet, Oulgaret Taluk, Puducherry. The Sub Collector (Revenue) South has instructed the petitioner to receive the residence certificate from the Taluk Office, Oulgaret since he is residing in Lawspet. The petitioner is not eligible for issue of community certificate in the U.T. of Puducherry as they were not permanent residents prior to 19.02.2001. The Community Certificate to the petitioner can be issued only based on the community certificate issued in his state of origin Poothurai, Tamil Nadu.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:47 pm )

10. I humbly submit that on hearing the statements of the petitioner and the report of the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Villianur, it is evident that the petitioner and his family were not residing at Sedarapet Village, Puducherry before the cut-off date of 19.02.2001. Hence, the petitioner Thiru Murugan S/o Ellappan could not establish his residential status in the Union Territory of Puducherry before 19.02.2001.”

4. Heard Mr. D. Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

5. The residence certificate sought for by the petitioner has been rejected

mainly on the ground that the petitioner and his family were not residing at

Sedarapet, Puducherry before the cut-off date i.e., 19.02.2001. That apart, they

were residing at Poothurai Village in Tamil Nadu, and the same was ascertained

by virtue of the report submitted by the Tahsildar. Hence, the residence

certificate sought for by the petitioner was rejected.

6. In the considered view of this Court, the daughter of the petitioner has

done her entire schooling only in Puducherry. That apart, it is also evident that

the petitioner was working in the Electricity Board at Puducherry and he was

also allotted staff quarters.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:47 pm )

7. This Court is taking into consideration, the earlier order passed in

W.P.No.21124 of 2023, dated 24.07.2023. The relevant portions are extracted

hereunder,

“2. Heard both sides. What does this circular in essence signify? Does law require that every resident of Puducherry should go to Government Office to sign their presence on daily basis? And when this Court perused the entire circular dated 06.10.2003, it finds that the second respondent has selectively picked up couple of clauses to reject the petitioner's claim, and has not considered the eligibility of petitioner in offering clauses. What it ignored is the Information Brochure released by CENTAC Puducherry for the year 2023-2024. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's case will fall squarely within Clause 10(i) of the said brochure.

3.Rival submissions are carefully weighed. To start with, what is now in dispute is whether the petitioner is a resident of Puducherry, and more specifically, whether she can be considered as a resident within the meaning of the Information Brochure of CENTAC for the year 2023-2024. Therefore, the authorities need not travel beyond this Brochure for ascertaining whether a person should be treated as a resident of Puducherry and entitled for a Residential Certificate. 4.Clause 10 of the Information Brochure released by the CENTAC, Puducherry for the year 2023-2024 reads as below:

"10.RESIDENCE CRITERIA Reservation of PG seats shall be as per the norms of the Government of Puducherry. (G.O. Ms.No.64 Dated 25/05/2006, Chief

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:47 pm )

Secretariat (Edn.I)). An applicant is considered to be a Puducherry resident if he/she is an In dian National an d satisfied at least one of the following criteria: i) The candidate or whose parent (either Mother or Father or Both) or Guardian (in case of children who have lost both the parents) has been residing continuously in this Union Territory for at least five years preceding the date of application. (Refer Annexure I-1)

ii) Those who have passed the 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 qualifying examination) in a recognized education institution located in Pondicherry UT and having their residence in Pondicherry UT for 5 years continuously during that period. Mere stay in places such as residential hostel would not amount to residence. (Attach certificated as per Annexure I-2a & 2b)

iii) .......................

iv) .......................

v) ........................

vi) ........................"

The above referred to two provisions alone were canvassed before this Court. While the petitioner relied on Clause 10(i) of the said Brochure, the respondent relied on Clause 10(ii) of the Brochure.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:47 pm )

Now, it is not about either Clause 10(i) or Clause 10(ii) of the Brochure, but what is even more significant is the stipulation that an applicant for PG Medical Course should only need to satisfy one of the conditions and not all the conditions in Clause 10(i) to Clause 10(vi) of the said Brochure.

5.If Clause 10(i) is closely read, it says that the candidate or whose parent or the Guardian has been residing continuously in the Union Territory of Puducherry for at least five years preceding the date of application. It does not mandate the candidate alone should reside in Puducherry since the proposition used here is 'or' and not 'and'. Sofar as Clause 10(ii) is concerned, it has two parts. The first part is that the candidate should have completed the qualifying examinations in Puducherry, and the second part is that the candidate must have his/her residence in Puducherry for five years continuously. The second part is clarified with the further statement that a mere stay in places such as a residential hostel would not amount to residence. What in effect it says is that one should stay permanently in Puducherry, and the temporary stay in Puducherry cannot be accounted for residentship.”

8. The above judgment will squarely apply to the facts of this case. The

petitioner's daughter did her entire schooling at Puducherry, and just because

they did not reside continuously at Sedarapet, Puducherry, for at least 5 years

prior to the date of application, will not deprive her of the issuance of residence

certificate.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:47 pm )

9. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned

proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents. It is made clear that the residence

certificate is issued to petitioner's daughter only for educational purposes to

submit her application. There shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue a

residence certificate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.