ORDER
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. An interpretation of the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with regard to the contour of the power of the Registrar under Section 7 of the Act would determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a death certificate of his father who died at Kolkata, from the Registrar in Tripura State, within whose jurisdiction, the deceased owned a house and was registered as a resident in the Panchayat ordinary resident register, during his life time.
Under Section 7, the Registrar appointed by the State Government is required to enter in the register maintained for the purpose informations given to him under Section 8 or Section 9 regarding births and deaths. Additionally, the Registrar is also required to take steps to inform himself of every birth and every death taking place in his jurisdiction and to ensure registration of such particulars.
2. The writ petition has been filed in the instant case on account of refusal by the Addl. District Registrar (BDO), Dukli, R.D. Block, Sadar to enter in the register the information pertaining to the death of Nityananda Mallik who was the father of the writ petitioner. It appears from the averments in the writ petition that deceased Nityananda Mallik was serving as a Constable under the Tripura Government and is a permanent resident of Singhamura village of Hapania Panchayat under Dukli Block of West Tripura district. As already noted the name of the deceased was entered before his death, in the Panchayat ordinary residents’ register, which was maintained under the authority of the respondent No. 2.
The deceased while undergoing treatment at BINR Hospital, Kolkata died on 3-3-2006 due to cardio respiratory failure. Following the death as aforesaid, the Medical Officer of the BINR hospital Issued a death certificate dated 3-3-2006 (Annxure-2) in respect of Nityananda Mallik, indicating therein that he was a resident of West Tripura district. Then an application dated 3-3-2006 (Annexure-2A) was addressed by the Joint Resident Commissioner of Tripura Bhavan, Kolkata to the Officer-in-Charge, Bhawanipur Police Station, Kolkata requesting for ‘No Objection’ certificate to carry the dead body of Nityananda Mallik by air to Agartala for the purpose of cremation. On the basis of permission granted, the dead body was carried to Tripura and the deceased was cremated in his home village on 4-3-2006, within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, respondent No. 2.
Thereafter, an application dated 12-5-2006 (Annexure 7A) was addressed to the Registrar for issuance of death certificate and the prescribed fee was also deposited through Treasury challan dated 16-5-2006, for the said purpose.
However, the Registrar refused to register the death of deceased Nityananda Mallik on the ground that the death has not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Registrar and because of such refusal, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction on the Registrar to act in terms of the provisions under Section 7(2) of the Act.
3. Before examining the scope and ambit of the powers of the Registrar, it might be appropriate to extract herein the relevant provisions of the Act the interpretation of which will have a material bearing in deciding the issues raised in the present petition:
7. Rgistrars :– (1) The State Government may appoint a Registrar for each local area comprising the area within the jurisdiction of a municipality, panchayat; or other local authority or any other area or a combination of any two or more of them:
Provided that the State Government may appoint in the case of a municipality, panchayat or other local authority, any officer or other employee thereof as a Registrar.
(2) Every Registrar shall, without fee or reward, enter in the register maintained for the purpose all information given to him under Section 8 or Section 9 and shall also take steps to inform himself carefully of every birth and of every death which takes place in his jurisdiction and to ascertain and register the particulars required to be registered.
8. Persons required to register births and deaths:
(1) It shall be the duty of the persons specified below to give or cause to be given, either orally or in writing, according to the best of their knowledge and belief, within such time as may be prescribed, information to the Registrar of the several particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed by the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 16,–
(a) in respect of births and deaths in a house, whether residential or non-residential, not being any place referred to in Clauses (b) to (e), the head of the house or, in case more than one household live in the house, the head of the household, the head being the person, who is so recognized by the house or the household, and if he is not present in the house at any time during the period within which the birth or death has to he reported, the nearest relative of the head present in the house, and in the absence of any such person, the oldest adult male person present therein during the said period;
(b) In respect of births and deaths in a hospital, health center, maternity or nursing home or other like institution, the medical officer in charge or any person authorized by him in this behalf;
9. Special provision regarding births and deaths in a plantation :– In the case of births and deaths, in a plantation, the superintendent of the plantation shall give or cause to be given to the Registrar the information referred to in Section 8:
Provided that the persons referred to in Clauses (a) to (0 of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 shall furnish the necessary particulars to the superintendent of the plantation.
10. Duty of certain persons to notify births and deaths and to certify cause of death.– (1) It shall be the duty of–
(1) the midwife or any other medical or health attendant at a birth or death.
(ii) The keeper or the owner of a place set apart for the disposal of dead bodies or any person required by a local authority to be present at such place, or
(iii) Other person whom the State Government may specify in this behalf by his designation, to notify every birth or death or both at which he or she attended or was present, or which occurred in such areas as may be prescribed, to the Registrar within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) In any area, the State Government, having regard to the facilities available therein in this behalf may require that a certificate as to the cause of death shall be obtained by the Registrar from such person and in such form as may be prescribed.
(3) Where the State Government has required under Sub-section (2) that a certificate as to the cause of death shall be obtained, in the event of the death of any person who, during his last illness, was attended by a medical practitioner, the medical practitioner shall, after the death of that person, forthwith, issue without charging any fee, to the person required under this Act to give information concerning the death, a certificate in the prescribed form stating to the best of his knowledge and belief the cause of death, and the certificate shall be received and delivered by such person to the Registrar at the time of giving information concerning the death as required by this Act.
4. It may be noted that prior to the enactment of the present Act in the year 1969, the earlier Act which covered registration was known as the Births/Deaths and Marriage Registration Act, 1886. In the statement of objects and reasons of the 1886 Act, it was clearly reflected that the Act was being introduced as a piece of beneficial Legislation for the benefit of such classes or community as would be likely to avail themselves of such registration.
In the statement of objects and reasons while enacting the 1969 Act, it is indicated that the said Legislative exercise has been carried out, inter alia, as the Central Government needs accurate country-wide registration data for the purpose of national planning, organizing public health and medical activities and developing family planning programmes. While introducing the 1969 Act, in the statement of objects and reasons, it has been specifically indicated that the informations on trends furnished by the registration data is very defective and unreliable and national interest requires an acceptable level of performance by the States and technical uniformity of the methods and standards used in collection and compilation of data throughout the country.
5. From a reading of the statement of objects and reasons as indicated above, it does appear that the enactment relating to registration of births and deaths is an Act intended for the benefit of the people as well as of the country and can be described as a piece of beneficial Legislation. Keeping the aforesaid Legislative intent in mind, it would now be appropriate to examine the provisions of Section 7 of the Act with regard to the power of the Registrar.
6. During the deliberations before the Court, assistance has been provided by participation, of Mr. B. Das and Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Advocates. The Court also heard the submissions made by Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned Counsel who represented the writ petitioner and Mr. N. C. Pal, learned Government Advocate who has made submissions on the basis of instruction received by him. The learned Government Advocate has argued that the Registrar in Tripura is not competent to act on information given to him of death of a Tripura resident when such death takes place outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction.
7. To gather the Legislative intent of certain provisions of a statute, it is important to read the provision in its context. The statute must also be read as a whole or read in its entirety in order to understand the true Legislative intent.
Accordingly, if one examines the words in Section 7(2), it appears to the Court that the Registrar in terms of the said section is required at first instance to enter in the register maintained for the purpose, information given to him under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Act. The said function of the Registrar as indicated by first part of the provisions in Section 7(2) is followed by the words ‘and shall also’ and requires the Registrar to take steps to inform himself carefully of every birth and every death which takes place in his jurisdiction and to ascertain and register the particulars required to be registered.
From reading of the said words, it appears that in so far as informations corning under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Act, which informations are required to be provided by the persons/authorities mentioned in Sections 8 and 9, those informations are required to be entered in the register maintained for the purpose by the Registrar. It is not stipulated either in Section 8 or in Section 9 or in Section 7(2) that the informations to the Registrar must be in respect of death happening within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Registrar.
But in so far as the second limb Of the function of the Registrar envisaged under Section 7(2), where the Registrar is to take; active steps to inform himself carefully of every birth and every death which takes place in his jurisdiction and register the same, the requirement of taking such information within his territorial jurisdiction is envisaged. In respect of such births and deaths occurring within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, the Registrar has a responsibility to actively pursue such information and register the same. It is, therefor, natural for the Legislature to provide a territorial limit on such suo motu functioning envisaged of the Registrar.
However, where informations about births and deaths are expected to come to the Registrar from various sources visualized under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act, the Registrar has not been fastened with a territorial limit for entering such informations in the register maintained by him. If the Legislature would have intended that even for information coming under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act, the Registrar is required to act only on births and deaths occurring within the territorial limits of his functioning, the Legislature would have definitely indicated in the first part of the Section 7(2) itself that the information has to be of events happening within the territorial limits of the Registrar.
It must also be kept in mind that Legislature while enacting Section 7(2) has conferred two distinct and different responsibilities on the Registrar by separating the whole sentence with the words ‘and shall also’. The use of the words ‘and shall also in the context is significant. The plain meaning that one could give to the Legislative intent by use of such words in the statute is that two distinct kinds of responsibilities are thrust on the shoulder of the Registrar. In the second part, the Registrar has to collect information on his own and naturally Legislature did not intend that he would collect information in respect of events happening beyond his territorial limits.
But as regards his functioning on the basis of information provided, the Legislature has deliberately not indicated that said functioning is to be confined to events happening within the territorial limits of the Registrar and accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the words appearing in Section 7(2) of the Act envisage two distinct functions of the Registrar to be exercised in two distinct contexts.
On the functioning of the Registrar, while he is acting on information provided by others under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the Legislature has not intended that Registrar is to act only on informations of events taking place within his territorial limits.
8. The words ‘and shall also’ appearing in Section 7(2) has also to be given its appropriate meaning as it cannot be said that those words are superfluous and have been used loosely by the Legislature. If a reasonable meaning to the words ‘and shall also’ is to be given, it would naturally mean dividing of two distinct division of functions of the Registrar in exercise of his responsibilities under Section 7(2) and the territorial restrictions envisaged in the later part ought not to be forcibly brought into play in the first part of the functioning of the Registrar.
9. The present Act is in the nature of a beneficial Legislation, which has been enacted for carrying out the welfare activities by the Government where maintenance of accurate records of births and deaths are necessary and to read the statute to mean that death of a local resident cannot be registered by a Registrar who exercises territorial jurisdiction over the area where the said local resident resides, merely, because such death takes place outside his territorial limits, would be unreasonable and illogical.
The objective of the Act to have accurate information on births and deaths would not also be fulfilled in such a case. If the Registrar is held to be incompetent to record such deaths, his records would be inaccurate and faulty.
As such it would be more reasonable to interpret the provisions of Section 7(1) to mean that while acting on information given, the Registrar is not to confine his function only to information given by persons within his territorial limits.
In Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, it is not indicated that the information has to be from within the territorial limits of the Registrar when he gives informations on births and deaths to the Registrar and this has to be interpreted to mean that information to the Registrar can come from an informant outside his territorial limits.
10. In the present, case if the statute is interpreted to mean that it is the Registrar as West Bengal where the death of the deceased had occurred, is to exercise the functions envisaged under the first part of the Section 7(2), it would lead to creation of a registration date in West Bengal State which would hardly serve the purpose of the Act. When the death of an ordinary resident of Tripura is recorded by the Registrar in West Bengal where the deceased was not an ordinary resident, the information that available with both the Registrar at West Bengal or at Tripura would be faulty. Such data would not be able to serve the intended objective of the enactment.
Forcing the family members to approach the authorities at West Bengal for registration of death would also be oppressive and unjust and would defeat justice.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Registrar while discharging his functions by acting on information given under Section 7(2) of the Act, is competent to act on informations irrespective of the territorial limits of his functioning, provided that the informations relate to a person who was a resident during his life time within the territorial limits of the said Registrar.
12. Having concluded thus, it is considered appropriate to direct the respondent No. 2, Registrar to act on the informations provided by the writ petitioner as well as the Medical Officer BINR hospital, Kolkata and enter the information given to him about the death of the deceased Nityananda Mallik, in the register maintained for the purpose. The Registrar is also directed to issue the death certificate to the writ petitioner in respect of death of his father in terms of Section 12 of the Act.
With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No cost.