Mrs.Beena v. Regional Administrator, Mahe, Government of Puducherry, Office of the Regional Administrator, Mahe, Puducherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 13-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.12980 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 20091.Mrs.Beena2.Miss.Bibina Balachandran.. Petitioners.Versus1.Regional Administrator,Mahe, Government of Puducherry, Office of the Regional Administrator,Mahe, Puducherry2.The Director,Jawaharlal Institute of Post GraduateMedical Education and ResearchDhanvantari Nagar,Puducherry 605 006... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamusto call for the records of the order, dated 2.7.2009, on the file ofthe 1st respondent, quash the same and direct the first respondent toissue Residence/Nationality Certificate to the petitioners, asResidents of Puducherry Union Territory.For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian Senior Counsel for Ms.S.HemalathaFor Respondents : Mr.R.Syed Musthafa (R1) Government Advocate (Puducherry) Mr.M.T.Arunan (R2)O R D E RBy consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken upfor final hearing and disposal. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance ofa Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the order ofthe first respondent, dated 2.7.2009, and to direct the firstrespondent to issue Residence/Nationality certificate to thepetitioners, as residents of Puducherry Union Territory. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The first petitioner, who is the mother of the secondpetitioner, had filed the affidavit in support of the writ petitionfor herself and on behalf of her daughter. The first petitioner hasstated that she was born and brought up at Palloor in Mahe. Herfather was a freedom fighter. She had completed her school educationfrom the Government Girls High School, Palloor, and her collegeeducation from M.G.G.A. College, Mahe. She was married to oneK.V.Balachandran, whose residence is at Tellicherry, Kerala State, on16.5.1990. Even after her marriage she had continued to reside atMahe, as she was the only daughter to her parents. Since they wereaged and as they were having serious ailments she was residing withthem at Mahe. 4. The first petitioner has stated that her daughter Ms.BibinaBalachandran is also a permanent resident of Palloor and her name isincluded in the Family Ration Card No.003556, issued in the year,2005. Further, the second petitioner is also a member of theGovernment Library at Mahe, with membership No.3059. She had studiedat St.Theresa School, Chalakkara, from L.K.G. to 3rd Standard. She hadcompleted her plus two studies from Silver Hills School, Calicut. Shewas residing in the hostel, while pursuing her studies. After she hadcompleted her examinations she has been residing with the firstpetitioner at Palloor. The second petitioner has made an applicationto include her name in the voter's list at Palloor and it is pendingbefore the concerned authority.5. It has been further stated that the first petitioner, being aresident of Navajothy, Palloor, Mahe, her name has been included inthe Family Ration Card No.003556, the Voter's List and in theElection Identity Card No.PY/01/029/012088, dated 9.11.1994. It hasbeen further stated that the second petitioner had applied foradmission to the M.B.B.S course at the second respondent Institute,for the academic session 2009-2010. She had appeared for the entranceexamination conducted, on 7.6.2009. Thereafter, the second petitionerhas been provisionally short listed for admission to the M.B.B.Scourse, for the session 2009-2010, against P-UR Category, based onher performance in the entrance examination and in accordance withthe merit list published, on 10.6.2009. The second petitioner hasbeen called to appear for the counseling to be held, on 15.7.2009. Atthe time of the counseling, she has been asked to produce variouscertificates, including the Residence Certificate/NationalityCertificate issued by a revenue authority, not below the rank ofTahsildar, as she has claimed the medical seat under the P-UR quota.It has been further stated that the first petitioner had applied forResidence Certificate/Nationality Certificate, along with all therequired documents showing proof thereof. The Village AdministrativeOfficer, had also conducted an enquiry and on verification of thedocuments he was convinced about the residence of the petitioners.However, the first respondent had issued an order, dated 2.7.2009,rejecting the request of the petitioners stating that the petitionershave not shown that they have been physically residing at Mahe duringthe preceding 5 years. In such circumstances, the petitioners havepreferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article226 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Mr.P.Subramanian, the learned Senior counsel, appearing onbehalf of the petitioners had contended that the order passed by thefirst respondent, on the basis of the report submitted by the VillageAdministrative Officer, is not legal and therefore, it is invalid inthe eye of law. The first respondent ought to have conducted anenquiry and he should have given an opportunity of personal hearingto the petitioners before taking a decision rejecting the request ofthe petitioners. As such, the impugned order of the first respondent,dated 2.7.2009, has been issued in violation of the principles ofnatural justice. In spite of sufficient documentary evidence thefirst respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 2.7.2009,holding that the petitioners have not shown sufficient proof, asbeing residents of Palloor in Mahe. The first respondent had passedthe impugned order, dated 2.7.2009, based on the report of theVillage Administrative Officer concerned, without properlyconsidering the records submitted by the petitioners, as proof oftheir residence at Palloor in Mahe. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thefirst respondent had denied the claims made on behalf of thepetitioners. He had submitted that the impugned order of the firstrespondent, dated 2.7.2009, cannot be said to be arbitrary orillegal, as it has been clearly held that they have been residing atKoilandy in Calicut District for the last eight years and therefore,they have not been residents of Palloor in Mahe. It has also beenfound that the first petitioner has been working as a teacher in aprivate school at Koilandy. Further, the second petitioner has beenstudying in a school at Calicut, by staying in a hostel. After hermarriage with one Balachandran, a native of Tellicherry, she hadresided at Tellicherry for a considerable period. Thereafter, she hadshifted her residence to Koilandy in Calicut District, where herhusband was working in a branch office of the Life InsuranceCorporation.8. It has been further stated that the impugned order of thefirst respondent, dated 2.7.2009, has been passed based on the reportsubmitted by the concerned Village Administrative Officer. A personalenquiry had also been conducted with the Revenue Inspector and theDeputy Tahsildar of the area. Further, as per the guidelines issuedby the Department of Revenue, Government of Puducherry, for theissuance of a Residence Certificate, the candidates, whose parent orguardian should have been physically residing, continuously, in theUnion Territory, at least for a period of five years preceding thedate of the application. Mere possession of evidence like RationCard, Election Identity Card etc., cannot be the sole criterion forthe issuing of the Residence Certificate. Therefore, the claims madeby the petitioners that they are residents of Palloor in Mahe, cannotbe countenanced. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the secondrespondent had submitted that even though the second petitioner mighthave been provisionally selected for the M.B.B.S course for theacademic year 2009-2010, at Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Medical Education and Research the said selection is subject to herproducing all the necessary certificates and the documents on thedate of the counseling. Unless such documents are produced theprovisional admission of the second petitioner would stand,automatically, cancelled. There is no provision for extending thedates of the counseling already announced by the second respondent.It is clearly provided in the memorandum issued to the candidatesthat they are required to produce the necessary documents, inoriginal and if the original certificates are found to be defectivetheir admissions would be forfeited and they will not be consideredfor admission to the M.B.B.S.course. It has also been made clear thatno extra time would be granted under any circumstances, for producingthe original documents. Therefore, if the second respondent is unableto produce the Residence Certificate, as required in the prospectusissued by the second respondent, she should forfeit her provisionaladmission given to her. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought forby the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court, at this stage.Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clearthat the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for thisCourt to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. Thefirst respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 2.7.2009, basedon the report of the Village Administrative Officer concerned andtaking into consideration the findings of the personal enquiryconducted with the Revenue Inspector and the Deputy Tahsildar of thearea concerned. Though the main contention of the learned counsel forthe petitioner is that no personal hearing had been given to thepetitioners, by the first respondent, before he had passed theimpugned order, dated 2.7.2009, it could not be shown that the saidorder is arbitrary or illegal. From the records available, it is seenthat the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated2.7.2009, based on the report of the Village Administrative Officer,and in view of the facts obtained from the personal enquiry conductedwith the Revenue Inspector and the Deputy Tahsildar concerned. Noreliable documents have been submitted on behalf of the petitionersto establish their claims that they have been residing at Palloor inMahe for the past five years. Most of the documents submitted by thepetitioners show that they relate to different periods prior to theyear, 2000. When it has been specifically found by the firstrespondent that Ms.Beena, along with her family, had shifted toKoilandy in Calicut District, where her husband was working in thebranch office of Life Insurance Corporation and that she has beenresiding at the said place, continuously, for the last eight yearsand that her daughter Ms.Bibina Balachandran has been studying in aschool in Calicut staying in a hostel, the petitioners cannot claimthat they have been continuously residing at Palloor in Mahe for thepast five years or more. As per the prospectus of JawaharlalInstitute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, theM.B.B.S course conducted in the said Institute, for the academic year2009-2010 and from the memorandum issued to the candidates it isclear that the original certificates, including the ResidenceCertificate, should be produced by the candidates at the time of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counseling and that no extra time would be granted, under anycircumstances, for producing the said certificates and documents.Since the Residence Certificate is one of the required documents, itis for the petitioners, who have obtained the same from theauthorities concerned, to produce the same during the counseling forthe M.B.B.S. Course, for the academic year 2009-2010, in JawaharlalInstitute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research. Eventhough the impugned order of the first respondent is dated 2.7.2009,the petitioners have approached this Court, belatedly, just two daysbefore the scheduled counseling date of 15.7.2009. Sufficient reasonshave not been adduced on behalf of the petitioners for the delay inapproaching this Court. For the reasons stated above, the writpetition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.Regional Administrator, Mahe, Government of Puducherry, Office of the Regional Administrator, Mahe, Puducherry2.The Director, Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research Dhanvantari Nagar, Puducherry 605 006.+1 cc to M/s S.Hemalatha, Advocate, SR.No.30491+1 cc to Mr.M.T.Arunan, Advocate, SR.No.307011 cc To The Spl.Government Pleader,(Pondicherry) SR.30737Writ Petition No.12980 of 2009NM {CO}TP/13.7.2009.