Patna High Court
Md. Shabid Akhtar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 October, 2016
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24917 of 2013
===========================================================
Md. Shabid Akhtar, son of Md. Sirajuddin resident of village Ram Nagar Farsahi,
Chlpra Bazar, police station-Janki Nagar, Purnia
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate , Purnia
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Banmankhi, Purnia
3. The Anchal Adhikari, Banmankhi, Purnia
4. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.) Indane Barauni Oil Refinery, Begusari
through its Area Manager
5. The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Indane Area Office at Begusarai
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. A.P.Ambastha
Mr. RAVINDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the IOC Mr. Anil Kumar Jha
For the State Ms. Archana Sinha AC to GP 25
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 06-10-2016
Heard both sides.
Initially, the writ application was filed questioning the
correctness/legality of the order dated 03.09.2013 (Annexure-9/1) passed
by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer by which the Circle Officer was
directed to cancel the residential certificate granted on 26.03.2012
(Annexure-2) in favour of the petitioner and also for quashing the order
dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent Circle Officer
directing the petitioner to deposit the said residential certificate in the
office.
I.A. No. 8488 of 2014 has been filed for adding the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd (for short 'the IOC') through appropriate authority as
party respondent(s) and also for quashing the order cancelling the
residential certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for
Patna High Court CWJC No.24917 of 2013 dt.06-10-2016
2/8
quashing of the letter dated 24.10.2014 (Annexure-10) rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner for his appointment as RGGLV dealership at
the location Ram Nagar Farsahi in the district of Purnia. In the light of the
aforesaid interlocutory application, notice of the writ petition was served
on Mr. A.K. Jha who represented the officers of the IOC who were sought
to be impleaded as party respondents and he was permitted to file counter
affidavit.
According to the writ petition, the ancestor of his family resides at
Banmankhi in Ward No. 13. Some of the brothers of the petitioner reside at
different place. The father of the petitioner had acquired land at Mauza
Ram Nagar Farsahi within Janki Nagar police station including the
structure thereon through a registered deed of sale dated 16.11.1968. The
land so purchased by his father stood recorded/mutated in the name of his
father who is/was paying the land rent against the receipt. In the family
arrangement, the land with the structure thereon fell in the share of the
petitioner and he started living at Ram Nagar Farsahi-Chopra Bazar. An
application was filed for issuance of a residential certificate of his residence
at Ram Nagar Farsahi- Chopra Bazar. An enquiry was directed to be made
and upon receipt of the report of the Halka Karamchari and the Circle
Inspector, the respondent Circle Officer issued the residential certificate
(Annexure-2) certifying him the resident of Chopra Bazar within Janki
Nagar police station. The IOC advertised the location for appointment of
dealership under the RGGLV. One of the requirements was that the
applicant should be the resident of the said location. The petitioner applied
enclosing the residential certificate (Annexure-2) for obtaining the
distributorship/agency. A verification was also made by the IOC from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.24917 of 2013 dt.06-10-2016
3/8
Anchal Adhikari about the residential certificate and its genuineness
whereupon the Anchal Adhikari, vide communication dated 06.05.2013
(Annexure-5) informed that such residential certificate was issued after a
verification made by the Karamchari and the Circle Inspector. On
17.05.2013, the respondent Anchal Adhikari served a notice on the petitioner to submit explanation as to how he had earlier filed an application for a residential certificate giving address of Raj hat Banmankhi, but later he again applied on 23.03.2012 in which no address was given. He was called upon to explain as to which place he is the permanent resident of. It is stated that an affidavit was filed by the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of village Ram Nagar Farsahi-Chopra Bazar. All on a sudden, he was served with an order of the respondent Circle Officer, Banmankhi dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure-8) informing the petitioner that the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer directed for cancellation of his residential certificate of Ram Nagar Farsahi. The petitioner made query and sought information under the Right to Information Act which was supplied on 26.10.2013 from where it appeared that the District Magistrate had sent a letter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for enquiry into the matter of genuineness of his residential certificate whereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer made an inquiry at his own level and recommended for cancellation of the residential certificate issued to the petitioner. It is stated that such cancellation of residential certificate issued to the petitioner has been made at the instance of the applicants desirous of getting distribution agency of LPG under the RGGLV at the advertised location.
I have heard Mr. A. P. Ambastha in support of the writ petition, Patna High Court CWJC No.24917 of 2013 dt.06-10-2016 4/8 Mr. A. K.Jha appearing for the IOC who are sought to be impleaded as party respondents as well as the counsel for the State.
Parties have exchanged pleadings.
It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the grant of the residential certificate is regulated by a circular of the government issued in the General Administration Department dated 08.3.2011 (Annexure-3). Column 10 thereof deals with issue of residential certificate and provides that on the basis of the document contained in Clause (10.1), (10.2), (10.3), (10.4) & (10.5); the authority has to issue the residential certificate. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner had acquired the land with some construction made thereover on 16.11.1968 (Annexure-1). That there was an amicable partition in the family and thereafter the petitioner started residing at Ram Nagar Farsahi. The fact that the father of the petitioner is the owner of the land at Ram Nagar Farsahi and is mutated in respect thereof in the revenue records has not been disputed by the State respondent(s) or even by the IOC. The respondents have completely erred in not appreciating the same and directed for cancellation of the residential certificate of the petitioner. On the basis of the residential certificate, the petitioner applied for agency under RGGLV and was selected in a draw of lots. Now owing to the impugned order directing cancellation of the residential certificate he would lose his candidacy/candidature. In fact, the IOC has cancelled the candidature/candidacy of the petitioner for obtaining the agency under the said scheme as he did not fulfill the criteria.
Mr. A.K. Jha has conversely submitted that as the residential certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled, the IOC had no option but to cancel the candidature of the petitioner as any candidate applying for Patna High Court CWJC No.24917 of 2013 dt.06-10-2016 5/8 the distributorship under the RGGLV is supposed to be the resident of the location /area advertised. After the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner, a fresh draw of lot has been carried out and another candidate has been selected. The selection of another candidate is not under challenge inasmuch as the selected candidate is also not made party to the present proceeding. On the basis of above, he raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Countering the submission of Mr. Ambastha, it has been argued that under the relevant circular of the government (Annexure-3), diverse documents/factors have to be considered before the residential certificate is issued. He drew attention of the Court in this regard to the documents listed at column no.10.1 to 10.5 of the said circular. Even according to the petitioner, nothing was produced except the sale deed which was in the name of the father of the petitioner who is also recorded in the revenue records. As the case of the petitioner would be guided by the provisions of the Mohammaden Law, the petitioner shall have no right or claim over the said land so long as his father is alive. Nothing has been shown to this Court that there was any amicable partition amongst several brothers of the petitioner in which the said land was given to him. It was a clear case of irregular grant of the residential certificate which was complained of before the District Magistrate, who directed an enquiry into the matter whereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer personally made verification after visiting the site and found that the petitioner was not residing at village Ram Nagar Farsahi-Chopra Bazar.
The State respondent(s) have filed a counter affidavit. It is submitted, on further verification, it was found that the petitioner had Patna High Court CWJC No.24917 of 2013 dt.06-10-2016 6/8 earlier made an application for issuance of his residential certificate stating his place of residence at Raj hat Banmankhi. Few days thereafter, he made another application for issuance of residential certificate stating that his actual residential address was different. On a complaint made in this regard, the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer himself inspected the fact/matter and found that the residential certificate was wrongly issued in the name of the petitioner and, as such, by order under challenge at Annexure-9/1 dated 03.09.2013 directed the Circle Officer to cancel the residential certificate. The revenue authorities involved in the grant of residential certificate were also directed to proceed against the petitioner as it was found to be a collusive one. In such circumstances, the Circle Officer issued the order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure-8) directing the petitioner to return/deposit the residential certificate which has been cancelled on 27.12.2013.
The Court is not required in this proceeding to consider the justification of the order passed by the IOC. The moot question is whether or not the residential certificate (Annexure-2) issued to the petitioner conforms to the relevant circular (Annexure-3) of the State Government which indisputably governs the field. For better appreciation, the Court would extract herienbelow Clause 9 to 11 of the said circular.
"¼9½ tkfr izek.ki= ds lk{; gsrq fuEukafdr vfHkys[k leqfpr ekus tk;saxs %& vkosnd @ vkosfndk ds firk @iwoZt dk ¼9-1½ jktLo vfHkys[k ¼;Fkk [kfr;ku] nkui=] Hkwfe laca/kh nLrkost] Hkwfeghuksa dks vkoafVr tehu ls lacfa /kr vfHkys[k vkfn½A ¼9-2½ dafMdk & ¼9-1½ esa vfYyf[kr vfHkys[kksa dh vuqiyC/krk dh fLFkfr esa LFky fujh{k.k dj tk¡p izfrosnu dks Hkh ;Fkk fLFkfr ;Fkk le; tkfr izek.ki= gsrq vk/kkj cuk;k tk ldrk gSA ¼10½ vkokl izek.ki= ds lk{; gsrq fuEukafdr vfHkys[k leqfpr ekus tk;saxs %& vkosnd @ vkosfndk ds ekrk&firk @iwoZt dk Patna High Court CWJC No.24917 of 2013 dt.06-10-2016 7/8 ¼10-1½ jktLo vfHkys[k ¼;Fkk [kfr;ku] nkui=] Hkwfe laac/a kh nLrkost] Hkwfeghuksa dks vkoafVr tehu ls lacaf/k vfHkys[k vkfn½A ¼10-2½ jk"ku dkMZA ¼10-3½ fuokZpu igpku i=A ¼10-4½ fo|qr foi=A ¼10-5½ nwjHkk'k foi=A ¼11½ vk; izek.ki= ds lk{; gsrq fuEukafdr vfHkys[k leqfpr ekus tk;saxs %& vkosfnd @ vkosfndk ds ekrk &firk dk & ¼10-1½ osru@isa"ku iphZA ¼10-2½ vk;dj fjVuZA ¼10-3½ vU;kU; vfHkys[kAÞ It is plain on reading those provisions that for issuing caste certificate (refer clause 9.1), the revenue record is to be considered but for issue of residential certificate (refer clause 10.1) as well as the income certificate (refer clause 11), different documents/proofs are to be considered/evaluated. In case at hand, the petitioner produced a sale document of land at village Ram Nagar Farsahi, that too, standing in the name of his father. From Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the respondent IOC, it is found that the petitioner is the voter of a different place (Banmankhi). On verification, the authority found the land of his father in Ram Nagar Farsahi is 'parti'. No other proof/document as enlisted at column 10.1 of the circular of the government was produced before the respondents and even before this Court. A citizen may have the land at different places but he is ordinarily a resident of one place where he has an accommodation and some other documents to show that he is ordinarily residing or permanently residing at that place. Precisely for this reason, the said government circular enlists different proofs/documents for claiming such residential certificate. I have pointed out earlier that except the sale document of land in the name of his father, nothing was produced by the Patna High Court CWJC No.24917 of 2013 dt.06-10-2016 8/8 petitioner in support of grant of residential certificate. Although, in the eye of law, the petitioner would not be considered the owner of the land standing in the name of his father as he is governed by the Mohammaden Law but even otherwise his land at village Ram Nagar Farsahi-Chopra Bazar, on physical verification, was found 'parti'. No other proof of his residency was produced.
Judging on the entire conspectus of the attending facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, the Court does not find any merit in this writ application.
Dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 6.10.2016 Transmission Date