O.Kochumman vs The State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13940 of 2008(H)


1. O.KOCHUMMAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :17/07/2008

 O R D E R
                       S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                ==================
                  W.P(C)No.13940 of 2008
                ==================
          Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008.

                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioner’s daughter’s birth was not registered by

the Registrar of Births and Deaths due to some reason

which the petitioner says was beyond the control of the

petitioner. For getting the same registered, orders of the

Revenue Divisional Officer is to be obtained. The petitioner

approached the Revenue Divisional Officer along with

documents relating to the birth of the petitioner’s daughter.

By Ext.P6 order the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the

same on the ground that there is discrepancies between the

two documents submitted by the petitioner regarding the

date of birth. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 and seeks

the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd
respondent to issue necessary orders to the 2nd
respondent to register the birth of the petitioner’s
daughter forthwith in the light of Exhibits P1, P2 and P7;

W.P(C)No.13940 of 2008 – 2 –

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6 to
the extent it adversely affect the petitioner;”

Under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, it is

compulsory that every birth and death has to be registered.

That being so, the birth of the petitioner’s daughter also has

to be compulsory registered. Since there was delay on the

part of the petitioner in registering the birth of petitioner’s

daughter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the

Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 13(3) of the Act.

The Revenue Divisional Officer cannot refuse to exercise the

same on the mere ground that there are discrepancies

regarding the date of birth. Since the Revenue Divisional

Officer has jurisdiction in the matter, he has to consider the

sufficiency of the reasons stated by the petitioner, and pass

appropriate orders thereon unless he is of opinion that the

birth itself has not taken place. If the birth has actually

taken place and has not been registered earlier, the

Revenue Divisional Officer can decide the date of birth of

the petitioner’s daughter, for which he has to cause

W.P(C)No.13940 of 2008 – 3 –

necessary enquiries to be made and ascertain the actual

date of birth of the petitioner’s daughter. He cannot simply

reject the application on the ground that there is

discrepancy in the documents produced by the petitioner

regarding the date of birth of his daughter.

Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and the 2nd respondent

Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to pass appropriate

orders in the matter in accordance with law and the

observations herein, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

rhs