Orissa High Court
Smt. Banalata Sahoo vs Smt. Jashobanti Sahoo on 30 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.17 of 2024
Smt. Banalata Sahoo .... Appellant
Mr. Sunshine Anand Swain
Advocate
-versus-
Smt. Jashobanti Sahoo .... Respondent(s)
and others
Mr. K.C. Rajguru Mohapatra
Advocate
(for Respondent No.1)
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak
AGA
(for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
Mr. Lalit Kumar Moharana
Advocate
(for Respondent No.6)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 30.06.2025
05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical
mode).
This Writ Appeal has been filed by the
appellant-Banalata Sahoo challenging the
judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.716 of 2015 so also the order dated
21.12.2023 passed by the same learned Single
Judge in RVWPET No.187 of 2023.
The Writ Petition was filed by the
respondent No.1 Smt. Jashobanti Sahoo
challenging the order dated 06.03.2014 passed
by the Tahasildar, Begunia in holding that the
appellant Banalata Sahoo is a resident of village
Diniary and the order dated 25.11.2014 passed
by the Sub-Collector, Khurdha upholding the
order of the Tahasildar and holding that the
Tahasildar, Begunia has rightfully issued the
residential certificate in favour of the appellant
Banalata Sahoo.
From one of the earlier order dated
28.09.2006 passed by the Collector, Khurdha in
terms of the order No.3 dated 22.08.2006 of
this Court in W.P.(C) No.5321 of 2006, it seems
that it was held that the residential certificate
issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Begunia on
22.11.2005 in Misc. Case No.2196 of 2005
holds good and the Collector in paragraph-6 has
observed as follows:-
6. I also recorded the statement of
O.P.No.4 Smt. Banalata Sahu. Smt.
Sahu in her deposition stated that her
home is at Mz. Diniari where she is
working as an Anganwadi Workder.
She has admitted that though her
father-in-law belongs to village
Nilakanthapur, she and her husband
are the resident of village Diniari. She
exhibited the voter list
(Supplementary) of 2006 corrected up
to 1.1.2006 and published on
10.03.2006 wherein at Sl.No.1140 the
name of her husband Ghanashyam
Sahu and at Sl.No.1141 her name
appear against house No.150. The
petitioner filed a certified copy of the
old voter list wherein the name of O.P.
No.4 finds place in village
Nilakanthapur at Sl.No.467 in House
No.20. However, in the new voter list
corrected up to 1.1.2006 in the
supplementary list, the name of the
O.P.No.4 and her husband finds place
in addition list. The O.P.No.4 also
produced a copy of the transfer
certificate/C.L.C. of Begunia College in
Exibit-5 wherein the permanent
address of her husband Ghanashyam
Sahu is shown as village Diniari. This
certificate has been issued vide Sl
No.2306 dt. 2.8.2006. I also perused
the certificate of Sarpanch, Podadiha
G.P. in which the Sarpanch has
certified that O.P.No.4 is known to him
and she is a permanent resident of
village Diniari (Exhibit-4). The
O.P.No.4 also has filed a copy of the
Residential Certificate from the Addl.
Tahasildar, Begunia wherein the Addl.
Tahasildar in Misc. Case No.2106/2005
has issued the Residential Certificate
that Smt. Banalata Saho W/O
Ghansyam Sahu is a native of the
district of Khurda and her family
ordinarily resides in village Diniari. This
certificate was issued on 22.11.2005
by the Addl. Tahasildar.
The learned Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner could not
refute the documents filed by the
O.P.No.4 regarding proof of her
residence at village Diniari. The
learned Advocate also refused for
cross examination, but requested for
further enquiry by the Tahasildar
Begunia with regard to Residential
Certificate issued by him in favour of
Banalata Sahu.
In view of the documentary
evidence, I am not inclined to accept
the contention of the learned Advocate
for the petitioner that Banalata Sahu is
not a resident of village Diniari. The
Residential certificate issued by the
Addl. Tahasildar on 22.11.2005 in
Misc. Case No.2196/2005 holds good,
till it is not set aside by a competent
appellate Court as the said certificate
has been issued in due process of law
in a quasi judicial proceeding by the
Addl. Tahasildar in exercise of his
statutory powers. The learned
Advocate for the petitioner is also
silent about the C.L.C. issued by the
Principal, Begunia College vide
No.2304/dt.2.8.96 (Exhibit-5) nor the
certificate issued by the Sarpanch,
Podadiha G.P. As such, I am not
inclined to interfere with the selection
made for the post of Anganwadi
Worker in Diniari Anganwadi Centre.
This disposes of the order No.3
dt.22.8.2006 of the Hon'ble High Court
in W.P.(C) No. 5321 of 2006."
The aforementioned finding remained
unchallenged.
From the impugned orders which were
challenged before the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No.716 of 2015, it appears that several
documents like RoR, College Leaving Certificate
(C.L.C), Voter List, Electricity Bill, Bank
Passbook were taken into account while issuing
residential certificate in favour of the appellant-
Banalata Sahoo by the Additional Tahasildar,
Begunia on 22.11.2005, which was confirmed
by the Collector, Khurdha. But from the
impugned order dated 24.04.2023 of the
learned Single Judge, we find that the entire
deliberation has been confined to the electricity
bill alone and accordingly, the residential
certificate issued in favour of the appellant and
the orders dated 06.03.2014 and 25.11.2014
were set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant
strenuously argued that when such a certificate
has been issued taking into consideration
several documents and the learned Single Judge
has not whispered a word regarding the other
documents, basing on only the electricity bill,
the residential certificate issued in favour of the
appellant should not have been set at naught.
Learned counsel for the State as well as
the learned counsel for the respondent No.1
fairly submits that the impugned order has been
passed solely basing on the electricity bill.
The Orissa Miscellaneous Certificates
Rules, 1984 (for short '1984 Rules') prescribes
regarding issuance of miscellaneous certificates
and one of such certificates as per Rule-3 is the
Resident/Nativity Certificate. Rule-5 of 1984
Rules states that the Revenue Officer shall
initiate a case record, scrutinize the documents
furnished by the applicant, verify the relevant
records, if any, in the office and whenever
necessary, may himself inquire into the matter
and call for a report of inquiry by a specified
date from an officer subordinate in rank. Rule-6
of 1984 Rules states about the orders to be
passed on such application and it states that if
on the basis of the documents, records and the
results of the inquiry, the Revenue Officer is of
the view that the certificate applied is to be
granted, he shall pass necessary orders in the
case record and sign the appropriate certificate
specifying the purpose solely for which it has
been granted and the certificate is to be handed
over to the applicant or his duly authorized
agent on due acknowledgement of receipt.
'Revenue Officer' has been defined under Rule-
2(b) of 1984 Rules.
It is very much clear that except
indicating that an inquiry is to be conducted and
documents are to be scrutinized, there is
nothing in the Rules specifying the nature of
documents to be verified by the Revenue Officer
while making the inquiry. In the case in hand, it
appears that several documents apart from the
electricity bill were verified by the Revenue
Officer while issuing the residence certificate in
favour of the appellant-Banalata Sahoo and that
order was confirmed in appeal by the Sub-
Collector, Khurdha. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge even if found fault in the electricity
bill, ought not have set aside the residence
certificate issued in favour of the appellant
without discussing or without adverting to the
other documents, which were relied upon by the
Additional Tahasildar, Begunia so also by the
Sub-Collector in appeal.
In this context, it will be apt to refer to
the decision of this Court in the case of Sk.
Talim vs. Collector, Jajpur & others passed
in W.P.(C) No.2582 of 2015, wherein this Court
observed as follows:
"5. Considering the rival contentions
of the parties and taking into
consideration the documents at
Annexures-7 & 9, this Court finds,
since both the documents involved
reference to the status of the land,
there is occasion to take these
materials for purpose of Residence
Certificate. Further looking to the
documents referred to by Sri Rath,
learned counsel for O.P.4, this Court
finds, there are number of documents
establishing that the petitioner is an
ordinary resident of Chandapur and
further for his participation in the Palli
Sabha Baithak in Village-Chandapur,
this Court finds that there is conclusive
proof regarding the normal residence
of the petitioner in the Village-
Chandapur. The document cited by the
petitioner and the Voter List, which
was prepared in the year 2013
becomes immaterial. For the number
of documents on record of the Sub-
Collector establishing the petitioner
belongs to Chandapur being taken into
consideration by the appellate
authority, remitting the matter for
fresh consideration has no substance.
This Court finds, the Sub-Collector
proceeded in the matter in accordance
with law and the impugned order,
therefore, does not suffer.
Under the above observations and
for the clear observation of the
appellate authority, this Court finds no
infirmity in the impugned order. As a
result, this Court while confirming the
order of the appellate authority
dismisses the writ petition. No cost."
This principle, when applied to the present
case, makes it clear that when multiple
documents such as RoR, C.L.C., Voter List,
Certificate issued by Sarpanch and Bank
Passbook etc. were taken into account by the
Revenue Officer and upheld by the Appellate
Authority (Sub-Collector, Khurdha), setting
aside the residence certificate based solely on
the electricity bill without analysing the
probative value of the other documents cannot
be sustained in law. Moreover, issuance of
residential certificate based on the documents
and inquiry by the competent authority is purely
a fact finding exercise. The said exercise by the
competent authority namely the Tahasildar was
subjected to appeal under the Rules. Therefore,
the concurrent finding of facts by two of the
authorities under the Rules seldom requires to
be interfered in the writ jurisdiction unless it is
found perverse. It is also prominent in the
present case that the respondent has not
assailed the order of appointment of the
appellant in the Writ Petition. The appellant has
been continuously working as Anganwadi
worker since 2005. Therefore, in the absence of
any challenge to the appointment of the
appellant, upsetting the appointment of the
appellant at a belated stage after lapse of
twenty years is not only prejudicial but it is
equitably unfair.
Therefore, we are of the view that the
impugned orders dated 24.04.2023 and
21.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge
are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the same are hereby set aside.
The Writ Appeal is allowed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok/Swarna
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Jul-2025 10:50:41
