Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15878
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice ANITA SUMANTH
R.JAIANURAM – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Temporary absence for education does not affect the status of being ordinarily resident for the purpose of nativity if the intent to return is established.
Headnote:
Nativity - Issuance of Nativity Certificate - G.O.Ms.No.40, G.O.Ms.No.64, and Order No.6260/C2/Rev/2003 - Court interpreted the concept of 'ordinarily resident' inclusive of temporary absences for education, leading to a decision favoring the petitioner based on the established ties to Puducherry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, born in Puducherry, applied for a Nativity Certificate, which was denied based on the argument that his family resided in Tamil Nadu despite presenting documents indicating their ties to Puducherry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner maintained residency ties to Puducherry, as evidenced by his education there and intent to continue studying in Puducherry, despite his father's employment elsewhere.
Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies for a Nativity Certificate based on his birth in Puducherry and the residence of his family despite temporary absences due to education.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that temporary absences for education do not negate the claim of being ordinarily resident in Puducherry, as long as the intent to return is established.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed; the authorities are directed to issue the Nativity Certificate within one week.
O R D E R
The petitioner was born on 01.05.2005 at Jipmer Hospital, Puducherry.
He claims that his father is a native of Puducherry and that his family has been living for seven generations in Puducherry in the same family house. According to him, his father had moved temporarily to Chennai and later to Kolappakkam in Kanchipuram District, all in the pursuit of better employment prospects. He had studied from the 1st to 12th standards in Societe Progressiste High School, Pondicherry. He now aspires for a medical seat and hopes to secure the same in Puducherry.
2. All statutory documents, such as Voter ID, Aadhar and Ration cards, according to the petitioner, reveal the residence of the petitioner and his family in Puducherry only. His application for issuance of Nativity Certificate had however come to be rejected by the Tahsildar, Puducherry/R3 on 25.07.2023 and an appeal challenging the same had also come to be been dismissed on 20.10.2023 by the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, Puducherry. The authorities have concluded that the family is permanently residing at Kolapakkam, Kundarathur and the petitioner vehemently denies this.
3. He points out that R3 has issued an OBC caste certificate and a community certificate based on the categorization of the caste as per the list applicable to Puducherry. He places on record a letter from Larsen and Toubro (L&T) to the effect that the petitioner’s father is a permanent resident of Puducherry at No.11, Muthumariamman Koil Street, Pondicherry – 605 001, which address is what is reflected in his Aadhar and Pan cards.
4. The petitioner submits that his father is regularly remitting property tax for the property in Puducherry and maintains bank accounts in a Nationalised Bank at the same place. They have no connection whatsoever to Tamil Nadu except for the employment of his father there and hence he is aggrieved by the rejection of his request for Nativity in Puducherry.
5. The petitioner relies on the decisions in i) K.V.MohammedShabaar V.
The Government of Pondicherry and others1 and ii) N.Karunya Vignesh V. Union Territory of Puducherry and others2. He also relies on an order passed by the Revenue Department of the Government of Puducherry bearing No.6260/C2/Rev/2003 dated 06.10.2003, which sets out guidelines for determination of residence in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
6. Clause 2 (i) in that order states that, while computing the period of actual residence in Puducherry, temporary absence for education, jobs etc. shall be ignored. Thus, according to the petitioner, his absence from Puducherry was
temporary as it was only for the purpose of education and must not count in deciding the question of his nativity.
7. The respondents have filed a detailed counter objecting to the Writ Petition. They rely on a field enquiry conducted by R3 at Kolappakkam, Chennai, which revealed that the petitioner’s father owns a residential house at Kolappakkam, purchased in 2019.
8. Thus, according to them, the statement of the petitioner to the effect that his father does not own immovable property outside Puducherry is incorrect and must be construed as being fatal to the matter. This submission cannot be accepted as ownership of property in a place is hardly conclusive as to the nativity or otherwise of the owner in that location. Purchase of property may be for several reasons, such as sentiment, investment etc. and while they may indicate some ties that a person has with that place, that has limited relevance in determining nativity.
9. They also rely on field enquiry conducted by the Village Administrative Officer (not a party to this writ petition) to the effect that the petitioner and his parents are not resident in the Puducherry address given in the cause title. Thus, they would espouse the view that the petitioner cannot claim nativity of place where he is not resident.
10. That apart, they rely on G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 12.12.2002 of
