- (1.)THE writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings No.No.206/PRATHIBA/STOM/T3/2010 dated 29.09.2010 to quash the same with consequential direction to the respondents herein to issue the Residence Certificate for 5 years as requested by the petitioner.
(2.)MR.T.Murugesan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is resident of Mahe and Sales Tax Practitioner recognised by the Government of Puducherry, Commercial Taxes Department and further, he submitted that the petitioner's wife Smitha is also resident of Mahe. Whileso, the minor petitioner Prathiba was born on 20.05.1993 in Shemy hospital, Thalassery, Mahe. The petitioner's son K.P.Goutham was also born in Mahe and studying in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mahe. In this regard, the fourth respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue), Mahe has issued a Residence Certificate certifying that the petitioner was resident of Mahe, living in Door No.6/509, Chalakara dated 30.05.2003. In an effort to fortify his case, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also mentioned that the voters Identity card issued under the community health insurance scheme by the Government of Puducherry in the name of the petitioner's mother Smitha also stand proof to support the case of the petitioner that she is a resident of Mahe. It was further stated that the petitioner has completed her XII Standard by securing 92% marks in the Senior schools Certificate examination, conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). While so, when the second respondent issued the information bulletin regarding the admission to professional courses for the year 2010-2011 stating that the person aspirating to apply for professional course should submit a Residence Certificate in terms of Clause 5.1.7. of the bulletin, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent for issuance of a Residence Certificate by producing all necessary proofs for issuance of a Residence Certificate along with earlier Residence Certificate issued by the very same Fourth Respondent on 30.05.2003. But the fourth respondent without appreciating any of the facts included in the earlier Certificate issued by him, wrongly issued the impugned order dated 24.06.2010/29.09.2010 stating that the father of the petitioner owns a house at Mokeri, Panoor with address No.X/89, Kalyani Villas Mokeri, Kannur District. Since no enquiry was conducted in this regard, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner gave a representation to the third respondent, the Regional Administrative Officer, Mahe explaining her case in detail with several other documents to substantiate her claim that he has been voluntarily residing for more than a decade yet the third respondent by passing the impugned communication dated 30.06.2006 rejected the request of the petitioner for the issuance of Residence Certificate for five years. As the third respondent has held that the petitioner was not residing in Mahe region for the past five continuous years, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14413 of 2010 before this Court and this court by order dated 25.08.2010 remanded the matter back to the Authorities for fresh disposal with a clear direction to the respondent to consider the case on the basis of G.O.Ms.48 dated 12.12.2002 along with the guildelines No.6260/C2/Rev/2003 dated 06.10.2003 and also in the light of the documents to be produced on the side of the petitioner by keeping in mind the judicial authorities cited by the petitioner. Inspite of the direction remanding the matter back, though the petitioner made a fresh application to the fourth respondent on 17.09.2010 along with sufficient documents to prove the petitioner's residence in Mahe, after holding enquiry, the fourth respondent rejected all the documents produced by the petitioner and finally refused to issue Residence Certificate to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
Therefore, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was a ration card issued by the Revenue Authorities and more so, a previous residential certificate issued by the fourth respondent, all these documents, the fourth respondent cannot simply brush aside, more particularly his own previous residential certificate issued in favour of the petitioner certifying that she was residing in Mahe for the past five years. Secondly, it was contended that merely on the fact that the petitioner was not a resident in Mahe and her father owned a house in Mokeri in Kerala State, just because he is owning a house outside Mahe will not disentitle the right of residence in Mahe. Further, discrediting the birth certificate of the petitioner is absolutely illogical as there is no reason to give a false address in Mahe and on that basis, by forcibly argued that when a Residence Certificate was already issued by the fourth respondent in the year 2003 rejecting that certificate the fourth respondent should not have arbitrarily refused to consider the request of the petitioner.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Basing on the counter Mr.R.Syedmustafa replied that as per the guildeline No.6260/C2/Rev/2003 dated 06.10.2003 coupled with G.O.Ms.48 dated 12.12.2002 Revenue Department, Puducherry to issue Residence Certificate in Union Territory of Puducherry, the actual and physical residence of the applicant is essential. The counter Affidavit further states that a mere possession of evidences like Ration Card, EPIC or previous certificates, etc., are not the sole criteria for the issuance of Residence Certificate because the applicant must be an ordinary resident of Mahe Region for the past 5 continuos years. Till that part is proved or established beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Secondly, it was contended by the learned the Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents that when G.O.Ms.48 dated 12.12.2002, Revenue Department, Puducherry contemplates two situations viz., a) Nativity by birth b) Nativity by continuous residence. The petitioner has to satisfy the Authorities by his physical stay in his place beyond establishing the fact that he had the intention to stay in that place for considerable length of time and mere stay in places such as residential hostel would not amount to residence as the same is not a sole criterion for issuance of Residence Certificate. If a person is born in the Union Territory of Puducherry and has been ordinarily residing within the Union Territory prior to the date of application and in order to satisfy the criterion of ordinary resident, the person should have been staying either himself or with his family within the Union Territory of Puducherry continuously with a clear intention of residing permanently and the applicant should have continuously been residing for the past five years prior to the date of application. When the petitioner submitted an application for Residence Certificate for five years for the purpose of applying for admission to Professional courses through CENTAC on 11.06.2010, the Village Administrative Officer, Pandakkal and Chalakkara, after personal enquiry with Thiru.Sivaprasad, the father of the petitioner and after field enquiry on the residence status of the petitioner, submitted a Report on 16.06.2010 stating that she has not resided in the Mahe Region for the past five continuous years preceding the date of her application viz., 11.6.2010. Further, the Report states that she is residing along with her parents at House No.10/89, Kallyani Villa, Mokeri P.O., Panoor, Kannur District, Kerala State. The said findings of the Village Administrative Officer were confirmed by the Revenue Inspector through the fourth respondent viz., the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue) Mahe who has rejected the request of the petitioner stating the reasons thereof. Therefore, let me see, whether the impugned order passed by the respondent is legally sustainable. It is relevant to keep in mind one vital aspect, the CENTAC, the second respondent herein has issued information bulleting containing clause 5.1.7. As per clause 5.1.7, a candidate claiming admission under this category should be resident of respective region for continuos period of five years preceding the date of application. Secondly, to claim admission under special allocation for Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam, the candidates should have studied in the recognised schools located in the respective regions continuously for 3 years, immediately preceding the qualifying examination. Mere stay in places such as residential hostel would not amount to residence because they should produce Residence Certificate from the competent authority not below the rank of the Deputy Tahsildar. The candidates should also enclose the necessary certificate in the prescribed format. Such Certificate should be obtained from the Head of the Institution in which studied and countersigned by the respective Chief Educational Officers of Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe Regions and the Regional Administrator of Yanam region and also they should enclose Residence Certificate issued by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar of respective regions, clearly indicating the addresses of residence. The Village Administrative Officer, Pandakkal and Chalakkara has conducted an enquiry and after enquiry, a Report was also submitted. The report says that the personal enquiry was also conducted on 28.09.2010 at 10 a.m. in the office of the fourth respondent viz., Sub Taluk Office, Mahe. It is noticed that most of the documents are recently issued hence the respondent came to the conclusion that they do not have any valid proof to claim that the petitioner and her parents are residing in Mahe Region for the past five years preceding the date of application. On that basis, the request of the petitioner for issuance of Residence Certificate for five years was rejected based on enquiry.

(3.)THE case of the petitioner goes to say that as per Clause 2.6, the candidate or whose parents have been continuously residing in the Union Territory for five years preceding the date of application are entitled to get the residence certificate as required under Clause 5.1.7. THErefore, it is relevant to extract Clause 2.6 and 5.1.7. of Information Bulletin. 2.6. Candidates belonging to Pondicherry UT are eligible for admission to all the degree courses. A candidate is considered as a Pondicherry UT candidate if he/she satisfies at least one of the following domicile criteris. A) Those candidates or whose parents have been residing continuously in the Pondicherry UT at least for 5 years immediately before the date of application. b) Those who have passed 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 the qualifying examination) in recognized educational institution(s) located in Pondicherry UT and having their residence in Pondicherry UT for 5 years continuously during that period. 5.1.7. Candidates claiming admission under this category should be residents of the respective region, for a continuous period of five years, preceding the date of application. As per the above clause, to claim admission under special allocation from Puducherry, Karikal, Mahe and Yanam regions, candidates should have studied in the recognized schools located in the respective regions continuously for three years, immediately preceding the qualifying examination (including the year of the qualifying examination), mere stay in places such as residential hostel would not amount to residents. THEy should produce residence certificate from the competent authority not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar."
Indeed, the above issue has been considered by this Court in W.A.No.1151 of 2006, dated 29.08.2007, wherein it was held that though a candidate gets a residence certificate in terms of Claus 2.6 that she stayed in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, while studying in any of the institution situated in the Territory of Pondicherry as Hosteler, unless a residence certificate is issued certifying that she is resident of Mahe Region, she is not entitled to get the benefit of special regional allocation under Clause 5.1.7. Therefore, though the petitioner has received earlier a residence certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities, subsequently, VAO and other Revenue Authorities have verified her permanent residential status under the Region of Pondicherry and finally came to the conclusion that she is not permanent resident of Pondicherry, therefore, no interference can be called for against the impugned order.