Smt. Lalithamma N vs State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar

Heard Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner and Sri. Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the records made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate during the course of the arguments. The focal issue in this writ petition revolves around non-issuance of residential certificate to the petitioner who claims to be resident of Darinayakanapalya, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chickaballapur District.

Petitioner contends that she was born at Darinayakanapalya in the year 1984 and has pursued her studies at Adiramaiah High School, and studied at Composite P.U. College in the same village. She also claims that her name is found in the voters list of said village for the year 2002 and even after she got married in the year 2004 she has continued to reside in the said village. She contends in order to apply for allotment of Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Distributorship as per notification dated 30.03.2012 she sought for issuance of residential certificate by the Tahsildar - second respondent, who considered the application filed by petitioner and has issued an endorsement dated 12.04.2012 at Annexure-L rejecting her request. It is this endorsement which is impugned in the present writ petition.

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a permanent resident of Darinayakanapalya and has been residing in the said village even as on date and in order to establish that she is a resident of said village she produced number of documents which has not been considered by second respondent. It is contended that on a report said to have been submitted by the Revenue Inspector (copy of which is not furnished to the petitioner) prayer sought for by petitioner to issue Residential Certificate has been rejected by 2nd respondent and in the absence of non-consideration of the documents produced by petitioner by the second respondent, impugned endorsement issued to petitioner is illegal and prays for quashing the same.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate who has made available the records by the second respondent for perusal of this court would support the impugned endorsement at Annexure-L by contending that on an application submitted by petitioner for grant of Residential Certificate jurisdictional Revenue Inspector has conducted a spot enquiry and found that petitioner is not a resident of Darinayakana Palya but she is a resident of Vadenahalli Village and on the basis of the said report Tahsildar has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner, which does not call for interference by this Court and as such he seeks for dismissal of Writ Petition.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the records it would emerge that petitioner has produced various records namely voters ID as per Annexure-C (relating to the year 2002), Rural Certificate at Annexure-D issued by the Head Master of Government Primary School, Darinayakana Palya, Study Certificate dated 13.02.2007 at Annexure-E Certificate issued by the Head Master, Government Primary School certifying that petitioner had studied in the said School from 1989-1993, 1993-96, 1996-99 and the Residential Certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Darinayakanapalya. According to these records it would establish that petitioner is a resident of Darinayakanapalya.

learned Additional Government Advocate has made available the report of the Revenue Inspector who has visited the place i.e., Vadenahalli Village, to ascertain as to whether petitioner is a resident of the said Vadenahalli village or not and based on the spot enquiry said to have conducted by him he has forwarded a report to 2nd respondent Tahsildar certifying petitioner is not a resident of Darinayakanapalya. 2nd respondent has taken into consideration the said report as the basis for rejecting the request of petitioner. Admittedly, said report was not furnished to the petitioner to rebut the said evidence. It is no doubt true that second respondent-Tahsildar has also taken into consideration the voters list relating to the year 2012 of Vadenahalli as one of the factor for rejecting the request of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact that petitioner having not been furnished the report of the Revenue Inspector and Mahazar said to have been drawn at Vadenahalli Village has not been furnished to the petitioner. In the absence of the said material being made available to the petitioner to rebut facts stated therein this Court is of the considered view that it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and as such impugned endorsement cannot be sustained. Ends of justice would be met if second respondent is directed to redo the matter by affording petitioner an opportunity to substantiate her stand and rebut the material pitied against her by furnishing the copy of the report of the Revenue inspector and grant opportunity to petitioner to produce all such materials she intends to rely upon either to accept or to reject the petitioner''s claim in accordance with law.

In the result, 1 pass the following:

ORDER

i. Writ petition is allowed.

ii. impugned endorsement at Annexure-1. dated 12 04.2012 is hereby quashed.

iii. Matter is remitted back to second respondent to redo the matter afresh on or before 29.04.2012 in view of the urgency expressed by the learned counsel for petitioner by keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and petitioner shall appear before the second respondent without awaiting for any further notice on 21.04.2012.

iv. Ordered accordingly.