Parent’s Place of Residence Not Sole Proof for Seeking Resident Certificate by Student/Child: Madras HC
The Madras High Court in M. Liya (Minor) vs Union of India – Writ Petition No. 22318/2021- rejected the petitioner’s claim to a resident certificate since the petitioner had failed to produce any proof apart from her mother’s residence and claimed to be residing with her.
A single bench of Justice M.Dhandapani held:
that except some documents no material documents which have a bearing in establishing the residence of the petitioner were produced by the petitioner’s mother to substantiate that the petitioner is residing along with her mother in Pallor village. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the fact finding Authority. Once the fact finding Authority comes to a conclusion, this Court cannot re-appreciate the entire material and substitute its view to that of the fact finding Authority. Hence, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be granted.
The petitioner had filed a writ to quash the order dated 30.09.2021as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and sought directions for the respondent to issue residential certificate and also directions to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for admission to Non-NEET professional courses on the basis that the petitioner is resident of Union Territory of Puducherry.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is native of Kerala State and resident of Mahe District, Puducherry and she had made application to Pondicherry Government for issuance of Residential Certificate in order to participate in the NEET (UG) examination. The counsel submitted that the petitioner after completing her higher studies applied for Residence Certificate, Community Certificate and Migration Certificate to the authorities concerned. Although respondent no. 4 issued Community Certificate and Migration Certificate, it denied issuance of Residence Certificate. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the act of respondent.
Further, the counsel submitted that the petitioner’s mother is a resident of Mahe and her mother owned a property and she filed a proof before the Revenue Officials for Residence Certificate in favour of the petitioner and in ration card her name was clearly mentioned. Besides, as per the Circular of the Revenue Department No.6260/C2/Rev/ 2003 dated 06.10.2003, if any one of the parents is permanently residing in Mahe Union, Pondicherry, they are entitled to Residence Certificate.
The court heard both the parties and observed that while the document produced by the petitioner reveals that she is resident of Kerala nevertheless solely because her mother resides in Mahe the petitioner cannot be granted residential certificate.
The father of the petitioner is a resident of Kerala and all the documents produced by the petitioner reveals that she is resident of Kerala and no document was produced to establish that her father is residing along with her in Palloor village. Merely because the petitioner’s mother claim that her husband is residing in Kerala that cannot be reason for denying Residence Certificate of the petitioner.
It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner’s grandmother made application for inclusion of granddaughter name in the ration card, however, did not take any steps to include the petitioner’s father’s name in the ration card. That being the admitted position, the claim of the petitioner’s mother that as per the custom in the community, son – in – law used to stay along with wife in the mother – in – law house, goes very much against the materials and the admitted position and further mere production of the voter ID card of the petitioner’s mother will not substantiate the residence of the petitioner in Mahe and as per the Scheme namely, Circular of the Revenue Department No.6260/C2/Rev/ 2003 dated 06.10.2003, mere production of the documents is not sufficient and the Authority is vested with power for ascertaining the physical residence of the applicant.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Rasmita Behera | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL