G PADMAPRIYA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar viz., the second respondent dated 05.04.2011, by which, the application made by the petitioner as per the directions of this Court, came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not living in No.171, Kizh Street of Kadaladi Village and her native village is Pulavanpadi Village of Arni Taluk and it was also found that she has given a false statement to include her name in the Family Card of Arumugam who is stated to have related to the petitioner.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up for admission, the second respondent was directed to produce the records relating to the enquiry said to have been conducted regarding the nativity certificate issued to the petitioner. The records have been produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader. On a perusal of the entire records would show that there has been an extensive enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, the second respondent before passing the impugned order. In fact, in the enquiry conducted by the second respondent, the petitioner has also participated and of course, she has stated that she is residing in Kadalady Village. However, on examination of various records, the Tahsildar has come to the conclusion, on finding, that she was not residing in Kadalady village any time and the said Arumugam is not related to the petitioner. There was also a finding that the Arumugam is not the brother of petitioner's father. Therefore, the petitioner has wantonly given the address of Arumugam as C/o Arumugam, 171, Kil Street, Kadalady Village for the purpose of getting nativity certificate. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no proper enquiry conducted before passing the impugned order, fails. I am fully satisfied that the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent by rejecting the claim of the petitioner for issuance of nativity certificate only after conducting proper enquiry, in which, the petitioner has also participated. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if the petitioner approaches the competent authority for the purpose of issuance of resident certificate, it is for the competent authority to pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that if such an application is filed within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the competent authority shall pass orders within a period of one week thereafter, after conducting enquiry. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are also dismissed.