IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30040 of 2007(A)
1. ROSAMMA MATHEW, NECHIKKAT HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH & SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/10/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 30040 OF 2007 A
=====================
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayer made in this writ petition is to direct the 1st
respondent to issue an order under Section 13(3) of the
Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 permitting registration
of birth with the local authority as requested by the petitioner so
as to enable the 2nd respondent to issue a certificate of birth in
respect of the petitioner’s children. There is a further prayer to
direct the 2nd respondent to issue a certificate of birth in respect
of the petitioner’s children.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner that Exts.P1 and P2
are the applications submitted to the 1st respondent for issuing an
order under Section 13(3) of the Act. In support of Ext.P1
application, petitioner has produced Exts. P3 to P7 and in support
of Ext.P2, Exts. P8 to P12 documents were also produced. It is
submitted that following the receipt of Exts. P1 and P2 along with
the aforesaid supporting documents, on the directions of the 1st
WPC 30040/07
: 2 :
respondent, the Village Officer, Nedumkumman conducted an
enquiry and submitted Exts. P13 and P14 reports to the effect
that the children of the petitioner were born within
Nedumkunnam Panchayat. However, directing that in addition to
Exts. P3 and P8 certificates produced by the petitioner from
Nedumkunnam Panchayat, petitioner should also produce similar
certificates from Paippad Panchayat from where the petitioner
hails and the 1st respondent returned the application. It is on
account of this that the writ petition has been filed for the reliefs
mentioned above.
3. On instructions, learned Government pleader today
submits that the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent
with certificates from the Nedumkunnam Panchayat and that
thereupon the 1st respondent had directed her to produce a
certificate from the Paippad Panchayat as she hails from that
Panchayat. According to the learned Government pleader
thereafter the petitioner did not approach the 1st respondent with
the required documents and that caused the delay.
4. In view of the controversy that is now raised before
WPC 30040/07
: 3 :
me, the only issue I am called upon to examine is, whether the
1st respondent was justified in requiring the petitioner to produce
certificate from the Paippad Panchayat in addition to Exts P3 and
P8 issued by the Nedumkunnam Panchayat.
5. Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to
Circular No.B1-67004/85/L.Dis dated 01/02/86 issued by the
Director of Panchayaths, Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths,
produced as Ext.P15 in this writ petition, which relates to the
issue of non availability certificate as is now required to be
produced from Paippad Panchayat. On a reading of Ext.P15, the
impression that I get is that before issuing Exts. P3 and P8 non
availability certificates, which have already been produced before
the 1st respondent, an enquiry has been conducted and it is only
thereupon that the said certificates have been issued. Once that
certificate has been issued, in my view as per the terms of
Ext.P15 circular, no further enquiry in that regard is warranted.
If that be so, there is no necessity for insisting upon production
of a non availability certificate from Paippad Panchayat for the
only reason that the mother of the children hail from that
WPC 30040/07
: 4 :
Panchayat. Therefore, the 1st respondent was clearly in error in
returning the documents and directing production of a certificate
from Paippad Panchayat.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the
petitioner shall resubmit Exts. P1 and P2 applications together
with Exts. P3 to P7 and P8 to P12 documents to the 1st
respondent, in which case, the 1st respondent shall consider the
application made in the light of the documents and also Exts. P13
and P14 enquiry reports submitted by the Village Officer,
Nedumkunnam. Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall pass orders
on the applications and the same shall be communicated to the
2nd respondent, who shall pass consequential orders. Petitioner
shall resubmit the application within one week from today, in
which event the 1st respondent shall complete the enquiry and
pass orders within four weeks thereafter.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp