A Resident Certificate must not be denied based on ancestral claims when valid evidence supports present residency, emphasizing the need for lawful inquiries prior to decisions.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 6^th March, 2014 (Annexure-1) passed in Misc. Certificate Appeal No.46 of 2013 by the learned Sub- Collector, Balasore (opposite party No.1) for cancelling the Resident Certificate issued in her favour by opposite party No.2 in Misc. Certificate Case No.311 of 2013 on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

2. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner applied for a post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Paikasta-I Anganwadi Centre under the administrative control of the CDPO, Bahanaga and opposite party No.4 was also an applicant for the said post and in course of selection, the former secured more marks than the latter and was placed at Serial No.1 in the final list. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.4 since failed to qualify in the selection process, with an ulterior motive to get the candidature of the petitioner cancelled, filed the appeal before opposite party No.1, who, thereafter, set aside the order of opposite party No.4 in Misc. Certificate Case No.311 of 2013 with a conclusion that the issuance of Resident Certificate is illegal.

3. According to the petitioner, she is a resident of village-Paikasta under Tahasil-Bahanaga and in so far as their residential house is concerned, it stands over Plot No. 1170, Khata No.80 and the same has been recorded in the name of her mother-in-law. The petitioner claimed that she is a voter of Paikasta and possesses Voter Identity Card being its resident and has also been issued the Aadhar Card in the said address at Paikasta. In fact, the contention is that the petitioner’s mother-in-law purchased the said land in the year 1992 and converted it to Gharabari and thereafter, was issued with the RoR and after construction of a residential building over the same, she has been residing there since then though her father-in-law is a resident of Bhimpur. It is stated that the residential house over the plot in village-Paikasta was constructed and being a resident, the petitioner applied for the Resident Certificate and after inquiry in connection with Misc. Certificate Case No.311 of 2013, considering the report of the Revenue Supervisor and other documents produced by her, such certificate was issued, the fact which was entirely lost sight of by opposite party No.1, who set aside the order dated 6^th March, 2013 passed therein and allowed the appeal declaring the issuance of the certificate in her favour to be illegal. So, the contention is that the impugned order under Annexure-1 deserves to be set aside restoring the decision of opposite party No.4, as such decision is clearly against the weight of evidence on record.

4. Opposite party No.1 with a counter affidavit filed justifies the order under Annexure-1 since it is based on appreciation of the entire evidence and on reaching at a conclusion that the in-laws’ family of the petitioner to be permanent native of Bhimpur. Opposite party No.1 referring to the counter and Annexure-A/4, such as, Voter List of the year 2013 in respect of Bhimpur and RTI information collected and received under Annexures-B/4 and C/4 claimed that no any error or illegality is committed in denying the Resident Certificate earlier issued in favour of the petitioner by opposite party No.4 as she is a permanent resident of Bhimpur.

5. Heard Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advoca