High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Residency Established by Continuous Residence and Supporting Documents,’ Reinstates Resident Certificate: High Court of Orissa

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Sub-Collector’s cancellation of Resident Certificate for Pratima Mohapatra deemed unjustified by Justice R.K. Pattanaik.

The High Court of Orissa, in a notable judgment, reinstated the Resident Certificate of Pratima Mohapatra, which had been canceled by the Sub-Collector, Balasore. The court emphasized the validity of residency claims based on continuous residence and documentary evidence, criticizing the Sub-Collector’s decision as unjustified. The decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness in the issuance and cancellation of certificates under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984.

The case originated from a dispute over the issuance of a Resident Certificate to Pratima Mohapatra, who applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Paikasta. Her application was supported by a Resident Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, based on a detailed inquiry. However, the Sub-Collector, acting on a complaint, canceled the certificate, asserting that Mohapatra’s family was originally from Bhimpur. The petitioner challenged this cancellation, leading to the present writ petition.

Credibility of Inquiry and Evidence:

The court scrutinized the inquiry report from the Revenue Supervisor, which confirmed Mohapatra’s residency in Paikasta. The court noted, “The issuance of the Resident Certificate was based on a proper inquiry, including documentary evidence such as RoR, Voter ID, and other records. Ignoring this evidence was unjustified.”

Procedure under Miscellaneous Certificate Rules:

Justice R.K. Pattanaik observed that the procedural requirements under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, were duly followed in issuing the certificate. The court emphasized, “A Resident Certificate should not be easily discarded when supported by substantial evidence of residency.”

The court highlighted the principles governing the issuance of Resident Certificates, stressing the need for a fair assessment of evidence. “A person may be a native of one place but can establish residency in another if continuous residence and supporting documents are provided,” the court stated. This interpretation aligns with previous judgments in Sarojini Sahoo v. State of Orissa and Anuradha Das v. Sub-Collector, Puri.

Justice Pattanaik remarked, “If an inquiry is held and supported by substantial evidence, the resultant Resident Certificate should not be tampered with lightly. The decision to cancel the certificate lacked a proper assessment of the provided evidence.”

The High Court’s decision to set aside the Sub-Collector’s order and restore the Resident Certificate of Pratima Mohapatra underscores the judiciary’s commitment to procedural fairness. This judgment is likely to influence future cases, reinforcing the importance of proper inquiry and evidence assessment in the issuance of residency certificates. The ruling serves as a reminder to authorities to adhere strictly to procedural norms, ensuring justice and fairness in administrative processes.

 

Date of Decision: 21st May 2024

Pratima Mohapatra vs. Sub-Collector, Balasore & Others

Similar News