Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
Smt. Jashobanti Sahoo - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.716 of 2015
Decided On : 24-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. K. C. Rajguru Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA, Ms. S. Pattanayak, AGA, Mr. A. C. Swain, Advocate, Mr. A. K. Dash, Advocate

The issuance of a resident certificate requires thorough verification of residence, and failure in local inquiry renders the certificate invalid, allowing for judicial intervention under Article 227 where perverse findings persist.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 2017 - Rule 3 - Resident certificate challenge - The resident certificate issued to an individual was contested due to lack of evidence of continuous residence in the claimed village and improper local inquiry. The Tahsildar's acceptance of documents without verification led to erroneous conclusions. The certificate was quashed as findings were deemed perverse. (Paras 4-18)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope and limits - The court highlighted that its authority under Article 227 does not allow re-evaluation of facts if the findings are based on some material, and interference is warranted only in cases of gross injustice or manifest error. (Paras 13-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the issuance of a resident certificate to opposite party no.5, who claimed residence in village Diniary but was alleged to be from village Nilakanthapur. The challenge arose from previous litigation over the employment of opposite party no.5 based on the certificate.

Findings of Court:
The court found the local inquiry as improper and that the evidence relied upon did not substantiate the claim of residence in Diniary, leading to the quashing of the certificate.

Issues: The primary issues were whether opposite party no.5 resided in Diniary and whether the resident certificate was issued based on proper inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that proper inquiry and substantiating evidence are essential for the issuance of a resident certificate and determined that the failure to adequately verify the facts rendered the issued certificate invalid.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the resident certificate was quashed.

Table of Content
1. challenge of resident certificate details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding residence proof requirements. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 14)
3. analysis of local inquiry and evidence validity. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. judicial review on findings based on relevant evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. final decision to quash prior orders. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Resident certificate dat ed 22^nd N ovem ber, 2005, issued to opposite party no.5, is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. The certificate says opposite party no.5 is wife of Ghanashayama Sahoo of village-Diniary, P.O-Bhogoda, issued on application for purpose of service. The certificate also says, enquiry report dated 22^nd November, 2005 was perused. It certifies, applicant (her family), are recorded tenants over khata no.148 in village Diniary, Begunia Tahsil. Opposite party no.5, on strength of the certificate, obtained appointment in the Anganwadi Center at Diniary. Petitioner has challenged the certificate saying, said opposite party is resident of village Nilakanthapur. She was not resident of village Diniary and could not have been so employed.

3. There was litigation between petitioner and opposite party no.5. Petitioner having successively challenged impugned certificate, ultimately obtained order dated 6^th November, 2012 from the writ Court, remanding the matter to the Sub-Collector. On remand, the authority rejected the resident certificate finding improper local enquiry. Opposite party no.5 then filed WP(C) no.26336 of 2013, which was dealt with by the First Division Bench of this Court on order dated 13^th December, 2013. Direction paragraph from said order is extracted and reproduced below.

“In view of the same, we quash the order dated 11.7.2013 passed by the Sub-Collector, Khurda, vide Anexure-7, and the order dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Tahasildar, Begunia, vide Annexure-8, and direct the Tahasildar, Begunia to hear the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order. The parties are directed to appear before the Tahasildar, Begunia on 07.01.2014. The Tahasildar is directed to dispose of the case within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 13^th December, 2013, the Tahsildar, by order dated 6^th March, 2014 (impugned herein) found in favour of opposite party no.5 to say, inter alia, as reproduced below.

“Now, I am inclined to accept the document such as CLC of Ghanashyam Sahoo H/O- Balalata Sahoo duly issued by the Begunia College, Begunia during the year, 1996, statement of villagers of diniary and the copy of electricity bill during the year, 2003 submitted by the respondent Smt. Banalata Sahoo besides about other relevant documents such as copy of birth certificate of the child of Banalata Sahoo, and address noted in SB Account clearly shows about resident of Village Diniary.”

(emphasis supplied)

5. Petitioner appealed against said order of the Tahsildar. By order dated 25^th November, 2014 (also impugned herein), the Sub-Collector dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tahsildar’s order. Hence petitioner, in challenging the resident certificate, has also asked for quashing said order dated 6^th March, 2014 passed by the Tahsildar and order dated 25^th November, 2014 passed by the Sub-Collector, confirming it.

6. Mr. Mohapatra appears on behalf of petitioner. On earlier occasion he had submitted, husband of opposite party no.5 purchased and got recorded land in village Diniary. The purchase was in year, 2011. Prior to that opposite party no.5 and her family were residents of village, Nilakanthapur. No evidence of residence in village-Diniary, of opposite party no.5, prior to year 2011, could be produced by her for obtaining impugned resident certificate. In the circumstances, impugned orders are to be set aside, along with the resident certificate issued to said opposite party.

7. Ms. Patnayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appe