Dismissed

Fathimathu Rusaila Nazar v. Union Territory of Puducherry

Madras HC18 Jul 2018WP/15833/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding nativity and residence certificates for CENTAC admissions, the High Court rejected the petitioner's claim of continuous residence in Mahe. Finding she failed to establish residency from 2011 to 2016 based on verification reports and lack of prior certificates, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the lower authority's order.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Fathimathu Rusaila Nazar Vs Union Territory… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.15833 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.18830 of 2018

¶6

Fathimathu Rusaila Nazar .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.Union Territory of Puducherry
rep by its Chief Secretary,
Revenue Department, Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
2.The Deputy Collector,
Revenue Department, Mahe, Puducherry.
3.The Deputy Tahsildar,
Government of Puducherry,
Sub Taluk Office, Mahe, Puducherry.
4.Central Admission Committee CENTAC,
rep by its Convenor,
Pondicherry Engineering Campus,
Puducherry – 605 014. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent dated 28.06.2016 in No.1448/DCRM/A.1/2015-16 and quash the same and further direct him to grant nativity certificate and the resident certificate to the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishna Prasad For Respondents : Mr.J.Kumaran, Government Advocate (Pondy) O R D E R

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 28.06.2016.

¶11

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was born in Mahe and is a resident of Mahe. She did her entire schooling at Mahe. When she was in her 12^th Standard, she had applied for CENTAC admission and also made an

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

application to the 3^rd respondent for Nativity Certificate since the same has to be enclosed with the CENTAC application. But the 3^rd respondent rejected the application on 03.06.2016 without giving any personal hearing.

¶14

3.Aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2016, the petitioner's mother preferred an appeal before 2^nd respondent on 07.06.2016 placing on record the Passport of the petitioner showing that the petitioner was born at Thalassery, Kerala and her address as Nour Mahal, Chalakkara Post, New Mahe, Mahe, Puducherry with validity till 17.01.2026, Driving Licence issued on 03.06.2015, Higher Secondary Examination Certificates issued by the Government of Kerala, Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Thiruvananathapuram for the examination held during March 2016 and June 2016, Birth Certificate issued by the Government of Kerala, Department of Urban Affairs, Thalassery Municipality and other relevant documents to prove the fact that the petitioner has been residing at Mahe.

¶15

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent erred in rejecting the appeal on the sole ground that the petitioner was not issued with EPIC. The learned counsel further submitted that the Passport, which was issued only after police verification, shows the address of the petitioner as Nour Mahal, Chalakkara Post, New Mahe, Mahe, Puducherry. Hence, the 2^nd respondent ought not to have entertained any doubt. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶16

5.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶17

6.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking for Nativity Certificate and Residence Certificate for the purpose of getting admission to Professional Course through CENTAC. The Village Administrative Officer, Pandakkal and Chalakkara, after conducting field verification on the residence status of the petitioner, on 01.06.2016 had reported that the petitioner is not residing in the Mahe Region for the past five continuous years preceding the date of application (i.e.) 01.06.2016. She is residing along with her parents at House No.7/146, Thaneem, Mangad, P.O. Peringadi, Thalasserry Taluk, Kannur District, Kerala State. The said finding of the Village Administrative Officer was also confirmed by the Revenue Inspector. Therefore, when the Village Administrative Officer had inspected and physically verified the presence of the petitioner, which was also confirmed by the Revenue Inspector, Mahe, Puducherry, the petitioner cannot find fault with the impugned order.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

7.The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner had again approached the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Mahe for reconsidering her earlier representation dated 27.05.2016 in which she had requested for issuance of Nativity Certificate, which was rejected and now again to reconsider the application and to issue Residence Certificate, Community Certificate and Regional Allocation Certificate. On the basis of the representation dated 27.05.2016, the petitioner was given an opportunity and during the enquiry, it was observed that the petitioner's name was deleted from the voters list of Mahe since she was not ordinarily resident of the same area and she failed to re-enroll her name in the voters list of Mahe inspite of having many chances.

¶20

8.The learned Government Advocate further submitted that when the petitioner has not produced any certificate for the period from 2011 to 2016 for continuous period of five years preceding her date of application viz., 01.06.2016, she is not entitled to maintain the Writ Petition.

¶21

9.I also find some merit in the submission made by the learned Government Advocate. Although the petitioner has produced the Birth Certificate, Passport, Aadhar Card, Ration Card, she has miserably failed to establish her case that she was continuously residing at Chalakara, Mahe from 2011 to 2016. Therefore, this Court finding no merits in the Writ Petition, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

¶28

1.The Chief Secretary,

¶29

Union Territory of Puducherry, Revenue Department, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶30

2.The Deputy Collector,

¶31

Revenue Department, Mahe, Puducherry.

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

3.The Deputy Tahsildar, Government of Puducherry, Sub Taluk Office, Mahe, Puducherry.

¶34

4.The Convenor,

¶35

Central Admission Committee CENTAC, Pondicherry Engineering Campus,

¶36

Puducherry – 605 014.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.SARVABHAUMAN ASSO. Advocate, S.R.No. 47709 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 48150

¶38

W.P.No.15833 of 2018
and W.M.P.No.18830 of 2018
VBA(CO)
TR(03/08/2018)

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Fathimathu Rusaila Nazar v. Union Territory of Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fathimathu Rusaila Nazar v. Union Territory of Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Shanmugam, Vs The Bharat Petroleum

Mr.C.G.Raghu, Vs The District Registrar of

S.Manoharan, Vs The Tahsildhar

G.Sekaran Vs The Inspector of Police

K.Elumalai, Vs The Commissioner

P.Jayaprakasam, Vs The Tahsildar