AMAL VINCENT Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition filed by Amal Vincent is directed against the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings No.206-AMAL/STOM/T3/2010 dated 29.09.2010 and quash the same with consequential direction to the 4th respondent herein, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue), Mahe to issue a Residence Certificate for five years as requested by the petitioner in consonance with the Clause 5.1.17 mentioned in the information Bulletin issued by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) MR.T.Murugesan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Mahe which is one among the four regions of Union Territory of Puducherry and the petitioner's mother Valasamma Vincent is running a clinical laboratory in the name and style of M/s Medical Investigation Centre, Mahe from the year 1989. While so, the petitioner's mother had also applied to the Assistant Inspector of Labour, seeking renewal of the Registration Certificate for running the Lab and thereupon, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour also issued a certificate on 05.10.2004. Consequently, a certificate for renewal has also been obtained periodically till 2010. On that basis, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that Form III issued in favour of the petitioner's mother will clearly speak of the fact that the petitioner's mother is doing business in Mahe for the past 16 years and this will in turn stand as a testimony in favour of the petitioner that they are the residents of Mahe.

(3.) SECONDLY, he argued that when the petitioner was issued with a Residence Certificate in the year 2008 certifying that the petitioner is residing in Mahe for the past five years, the very same fourth respondent is legally estopped from issuing the impugned order in 2010 stating that the petitioner is residing only for the past three years. On these two submissions, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order by placing his argument that the latest impugned order issued by the 4th respondent confining the Residence Certificate to three years is absolutely unwarranted as it is going against his own earlier residence certificate certifying the case of the petitioner that he lived for about 5 years in the same place.