Shri. Mukul Dey v. The Tehsildar

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI WPA/346/2025 Shri. Mukul Dey ... Petitioner

Versus

The Tehsildar, Ferrargunj Tehsil ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. S.K.Golder For the respondent : Ms. Babita Das Heard on : 06.08.2025 Judgment on : 11.08.2025 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

1.

The writ petition has been filed by citizen seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue a Economically Weaker Section Certificate in favour of the petitioner.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied online before the respondent authorities on February 19, 2024 for issuances of the Economically Weaker Sections certificate in his favour. The petitioner submitted all relevant documents required for issuance of such certificate. The petitioner also submitted that he change his surname from Mukul Auliya to Mukul Dey. In support of such change, the petitioner submits

the affidavit followed by a publication in Part IV of the Gazette of India dated August 24, 2024.

3.

According to the case made out by the petitioner, he was abandoned by his natural parents in the year 2017. The natural parents of the petitioner left the petitioner in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and left for mainland. Since then the petitioner has been living in the Islands at his own. Subsequently, the petitioner was saved by one of his teachers namely Shri. Subinoy Dey. The story of rescue of the petitioner was also published in the local newspaper. The petitioner also submitted that he has all along studied in the Islands from class 3 and completed his schooling in the Islands followed by graduation from Jawaharlal Nehru Rajakiya Mahavidyalay, Port Blair. 4.

The petitioner also made out a case that for the second time, the petitioner again applied for issuance of an Economically Weaker Section Certificate on October 14, 2024 along with all requisite documents. Such application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of submission of insufficient documents. The petitioner submits that he had submitted all necessary documents required for issuance of the Economically Weaker Section Certificate and the petitioner is eligible for issuance of such certificate in his favour. He also submitted that while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, the authorities did not disclosed the specific details of the missing documents which was required to be filed. In

pursuance of the rejection of his second application. The writ petitioner filed a written representation before the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj Tehsil on February 11, 2025 requesting him to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of EWS certificate.

However, according to the petitioner, such representation has not yet been considered and decided by the Tehsildar. According to the petitioner, his application for issuance of Economically Weaker Section Certificate were rejected by the authorities for no genuine reasons. 5.

In support of his contentions, the petitioner referred to email message informing the petitioner that his application for issuance of Economically Weaker Section Certificate dated February 19, 2024 was rejected. He has also referred to the newspaper cutting which reported the rescue by one of his Teachers Shri. Subinoy Dey. The petitioner also placed educational qualification certificates and mark sheet issued by Pondicherry University. The petitioner also referred to the Gazette of India part IV whereby it was published that the petitioner Mukul Auliya changed his name as Mukul Dey. Annexure P6 to the writ petition is the representation dated February 11, 2025 filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj, South Andaman.

6.

Learned advocate for the respondents, although did not seek any direction for filing affidavit, but has come up with a report. It was submitted by learned advocate for the

respondents that the documents filed by the writ petitioner at the time of application for issuance of the Economically Weaker Section Certificate were insufficient. A mismatch in the name was also noticed. According to the report submitted on behalf of the respondents, the Aadhar Card submitted by the petitioner did not contain Father's name of the petitioner. Ration Card supplied by the petitioner stood in the name of Mukul Auliya where as the petitioner applied for issuance of certificate in the name of Mukul Dey. The annual income certificate issued by the authority was standing in the name of Mukul Dey. Report also disclosed that the affidavit in respect of correction of name was filed by the petitioner without any documents showing adoption of the petitioner.

It was also pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondents that in the Gazette Notification submitted by the petitioner the name of the person to whose care the petitioner was mentioned as 'Suinoy Dey' whereas the affidavit submitted on behalf of the petitioner contained such name as 'Subinoy Dey'. Learned advocate for the respondents also submitted that the address of the petitioner supplied in his application was verified and on field inquiry it was found that the petitioner was not a resident of the address which he supplied in his application. Learned advocate for the respondent also submitted that the petitioner did not supply the Islanders Identity Card which is compulsory documents for issuance of Economically Weaker Section Certificate.

the aforesaid counts, the application filed by the petitioner were rejected.

7.

Having heard the rival contentions together with the documents placed for consideration, it appears that the writ petitioner applied for issuance of an Economically Weaker Section Certificate twice.

The authorities rejected such application on both the occasion for want of necessary documents and also on the ground that there was mismatch in the name and addresses of the petitioner. On the basis of the submissions made by learned advocate for the respondent, the grounds on which the application of the petitioner was rejected can be jotted down as:

i. The documents filed by the writ petitioner at the time of application for issuance of the Economically Weaker Section Certificate were insufficient.

ii. A mismatch in the name was also noticed as the documents submitted stood in the name of Mukul Aulia whereas the application was in the name of Mukul Dey.

iii. The Aadhar Card submitted by the petitioner did not contain Father's name of the petitioner.

iv. The affidavit in respect of correction of name was filed by the petitioner was without any documents showing adoption of the petitioner. v. In the Gazette Notification submitted by the petitioner, the name of the person under whose care the petitioner lived, was mentioned as 'Suinoy Dey' whereas the affidavit submitted on behalf of the petitioner contained such name as 'Subinoy Dey'.

vi. The address of the petitioner supplied in his application was verified and on field inquiry it was found that the petitioner was not a resident of the address which he supplied in his application.

vii. The petitioner did not supply the Islanders Identity Card which is compulsory documents for issuance of Economically Weaker Section Certificate.

8.

The petitioner has come up with a case that at the time of rejection of his application, the authorities never disclosed the documents which were required and not submitted by the petitioner in support of his application. The respondent has not been able to demonstrate that any intimation was communicated to the petitioner indicating the specific shortfall of the documents required to be submitted by the petitioner. In

the report submitted by the respondent, the short comings in the documents appended to the application filed by the petitioner has been elicited.

9.

The respondent has also pointed out that there was a mismatch in the name of the petitioner. He submitted document in the name of Mukul Auliya where as he applied for the certificate in the name of Mukul Dey. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was abandoned by his parents who left for the Mainland leaving the writ petitioner in Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The petitioner was rescued by a teacher namely Subinoy Dey. In pursuance of such developments, the petitioner adopted the surname of the teacher who rescued him. He sworn an Affidavit in respect thereof. He also relied on a publication in Part-IV of the Gazette of India with regard to change of his name from Mukul Auliya to Mukul Dey. The publication was made in the Gazette of India on August, 24, 2024 and the petitioner applied for issuance of Economically Weaker Section Certificate on October, 14, 2024 i.e. after he changed his surname. 10.

The respondent has also raised an objection that the Aadhar Card submitted by the petitioner did not contain the name of the father of the petitioner. The E-mail messages sent by the respondent authorities to the petitioner intimating him that his application for issuance of certificate was rejected shows that it was issued to the petitioner Mukul Dey, S/o

Sukumar Auliya. Moreover, the publication in the official Gazette also shows the father's name of the petitioner as Sukumar Auliya. The certificate, mark sheet in respect of the education qualification of the petitioner Exhibit the name of the petitioner as Mukul Auliya. The aforesaid certificate were apparently issued prior to the publication of the official Gazette regarding change the surname of the petitioner. Similarly, local certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Little Andaman in favour of the petitioner and the Ration Card and the Voter Identity Card issued by the competent authorities also contain the name of the petitioner as Mukul Auliya, S/o Sukumar Auliya.

11.

The aforesaid documents specifically the Local Certificate, Ration Card also contains the address of the petitioner at V.K.Pur, Little Andaman and Collinpur, Ferrargunj respectively. The education qualification certificates relied upon by the petitioner goes to show that the petitioner perused his studies at least until graduation within the territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The annual income certificate issued in the name of the petitioner by the competent authorities stands in the name of Mukul Dey. Needless to mention that the petitioner changed his surname from Mukyl Auliya to Mukul Dey in the year 2024 which he was at liberty to do. The petitioner similarly, opted to change his surname from Mukul Auliya to Mukul Dey, there is no

question of adoption by the petitioner by someone having the surname of Dey. Therefore, the objection raised on behalf of the authorities with regard to adoption, mismatch of name cannot be sustained. Similarly, the petitioner supplied several documents at the time he applied for the Economically Weaker Section Certificate, which contains the residential address of the petitioner. Such documents can sufficiently be considered as a proof of residential address of the petitioner. The Local Certificate issued by the authorities also stands in the name of the petitioner showing his residence of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Although, the respondent have raised an objection that the petitioner failed to produce Islander Identity Card which was a compulsory document for issuance of certificate applied by the petitioner, nothing has been placed on behalf of the respondent that no Economically Weaker Section Certificate can be issued without an Islander Identity Card. 12.

In such circumstances, I am not in a position to hold that the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Economically Weaker Section Certificate was devoid of necessary documents required for the purpose of issuance of such certificate.

13.

Subsequent to rejection of the second application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj Tehsil on February, 11, 2025. The

said application has not yet been consider and decided by the Tehsildar.

14.

In such circumstances, the instant writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Tehsildar, Ferrargunj Tehsil to consider and dispose of the written representation dated February, 11, 2025 filed on behalf of the writ petitioner in accordance with law and also taking into consideration the observation made herein before within two (02) months from the date of communication of this order. In doing so, the respondent shall afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The respondent is at liberty to hear such other person or persons and consult such other documents as he deemed necessary and shall communicate the result of such consideration to the petitioner within a fortnight of the disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner. 15.

Accordingly, the WPA/346/2025 is disposed of. 16.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)