Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
THAMIZHARASAN.M – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.M.P.Nos.23961 of 2024 & 41630 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.Sai Krishnan
For the Respondents: R.Sreedhar

When public documents (birth, education, previous certificates) prove continuous residence, authorities cannot reject residence certificate based on a vague VAO report lacking enquiry details.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Guidelines for issuance of residence certificate (Order No.6260/C2/Rev/2003) - Criteria for determination of residents in Union Territory - Actual and physical residence essential - Mere possession of documents like Ration Card, EPIC not sole criteria - But such evidence should not be totally ignored - When applicant born in Union Territory, completed entire education there, and possesses previous residence certificates issued by same authorities, rejection based solely on Village Administrative Officer's report lacking particulars (not specifying persons examined or statements recorded) is unsustainable - Authorities must consider all public documents. (Paras 8-12)

(B) Residence Certificate - Enquiry - Village Administrative Officer's report - Must contain details of enquiry, persons examined, statements recorded - Vague and unilateral conclusion insufficient to override documentary evidence of continuous residence. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, born in the Union Territory, applied for a Home Guard post requiring domicile. He had birth certificate, school and college education in the Union Territory, earlier residence certificates, and other government documents (ration card, voter ID, etc.). The revenue authorities rejected his application for residence certificate relying on a Village Administrative Officer's report that claimed the applicant was not permanently residing there. The appellate authority confirmed. The applicant challenged by writ.

Findings of Court:
The impugned orders are based solely on the VAO report which lacks material particulars. The public documents produced by the applicant (birth certificate, educational certificates, earlier residence certificates) are undisputed and clearly show continuous residence. The guidelines require authorities to consider all evidence. The VAO report cannot override such documentary proof. Hence the rejection is invalid.

Issues: Whether rejection of residence certificate based on a vague VAO report is sustainable when the applicant has substantial documentary evidence of continuous residence in the Union Territory.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when an applicant provides birth certificate, school and college education records, and previously issued residence certificates by the same authority, the authorities must give due weight to these public documents. A VAO report that does not specify the persons examined or record their statements cannot be the sole basis to deny the certificate. The guidelines require a discreet enquiry but the report must contain sufficient particulars.

Result: Writ allowed. Impugned orders quashed. Respondents directed to issue residence certificate to the petitioner within one month. No costs.

ORDER

Challenging the order of the Tahsildar/3^rd respondent, dated 09.07.2024, rejecting the request of the petitioner for issuance of residence certificate and the order of the Appellate Authority/2^nd respondent, dated 22.07.2024, confirming the order of the 3^rd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is a native of Union Territory of Puducherry by birth. His father and grandfather are also natives of Puducherry. The 5^th respondent issued a recruitment notification, dated 27.10.2023, inviting applications for filling up 420 posts of Home Guard (Male) from the residents of Union Territory of Puducherry. The essential qualification is 10^th Std. and the applicant should be a domicile of Union Territory of Puducherry. According to the petitioner, he is qualified for the post of Home Guard and therefore, he applied for the said post and he had also undergone three stages of selection and he was provisionally selected to the post of Home Guard (Male) vide notification issued by the 4^th respondent dated 01.07.2024. In such circumstances, when the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent seeking issuance of residence certificate, the 3^rd respondent strangely passed the impugned order, dated 09.07.2024, refusing to issue residence certificate on the ground that the father of the petitioner is having an EPIC Card, Ration Card, claiming residential status both in Puducherry and Tamil Nadu. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was also filed by the petitioner before the Sub-Collector/2nd respondent, however, the 2^nd respondent, by impugned order dated 22.07.2024, confirmed the order of the 3^rd respondent. Challenging both the orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.The impugned orders are sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was born on 24.04.1998 at Union Territory of Puducherry and his birth was duly registered with the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Puducherry Municipality vide Certificate bearing Registration No.M/1998/4544. The Birth Certificate also clearly shows the address of the parents of the petitioner at Puducherry. That apart, the petitioner has completed his entire schooling and college education only at Puducherry. In fact, the 3^rd respondent has issued a certificate on 28.11.2013 stating that the petitioner is residing in Puducherry for the past 10 years and again on 23.10.2020, the 3^rd respondent has issued residence certificate stating that the petitioner is residing in Puducherry for the last five years. Further, on 20.01.1995 and 04.04.2006, the 3^rd respondent has issued Nativity Certificate to the petitioner’s father. The petitioner is ordinarily residing only at Puducherry and is a permanent resident of Puducherry. He has obtained following documents at Puducherry :

(a)Birth Certificate issued by Puducherry Municipality dated 29.04.1998

(b)Secondary School Leaving Certificate dated 23.05.2014

(c)Higher Secondary Course Certificate dated 17.05.2016

(d)Transfer Certificate by School upon completion of 12^th Standard

(e)Provisional Degree Certificate dated 09.01.2021

(f)Integrated Certificate-Nativity/Residence/Community/Nationality issued by Department of Revenue & Disaster Management dated 28.11.2023

(g)Residence & Nativity Certificate issued by Tahsildar dated 23.10.2020

(h)Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 23.10.2020

(i)Petitioner’s family Ration Card issued by Government of Puducherry

(j)Voter ID Card

(k)Aadhar Card

(l)Petitioner’s father’s Aadhar Card

(m)Petitioner’s Father’s Driving Licence

(n)Nationality Certificate issued by 2^nd respondent to petitioner’s father dated 20.01.1995

(o)Nativity Certificate issued by 2^nd respondent to petitioner’s father dated 04.04.2006

(p)Voter ID Card issued by Election Commission of India to petitioner’s father during Aug’1995

(q)Invitation to 15^th day Ceremony of petitioner’s grandfather

(r)Marriage Invitation of petitioner’s parents

(s)Water Tax Receipt

(t)Copy of petitioner’s father’s old ration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMARTHAMIZHARASAN.M – AppellantVersusTHE UNION OF INDIA – RespondentW.M.P.Nos.23961 of 2024 & 41630 of 2025

When public documents (birth, education, previous certificates) prove continuous residence, authorities cannot reject residence certificate based on a vague VAO report lacking enquiry details.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
THAMIZHARASAN.M – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.M.P.Nos.23961 of 2024 & 41630 of 2025