Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
B. Ranganatha Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18393 of 2019
Decided On : 04-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
K. Gopal, Advocate
Point of Law: Abnormal delay, which is unexplained disentitles the petitioner to claim such discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent No.4 in issuing impugned endorsement without verifying the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Tadipatri, and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary – Challenged – Held, Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances - Request of the petitioner to alter the date of birth and register the same in the birth register at the age of 70 years i.e. after 12 years from the date of his retirement from Government service is without any purpose and it does not amount to infringement of fundamental right, constitutional right or human right of the petitioner – Petition dismissed
Facts of the Case:
At the time of admission into MBBS course, the petitioner came to know about the wrong recording of date of birth, but he did not apply for change of date of birth with an apprehension that in case the original date of birth is restored, the petitioner is ineligible due to under age to study the medicine course. After joining into service, the petitioner vigorously made attempts to restore the original date of birth in the records, but he could not succeed in getting the date of birth corrected in the records
Finding of the Court:
Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances
Result: Writ petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
M Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Dr. B.Ranganatha Reddy filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent No.4 in issuing impugned endorsement dated 24.10.2019 without verifying the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Tadipatri, and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioner was born on 05.05.1952, but his date of birth was recorded in SSLC register as 01.07.1950 as the petitioner was under aged to appear for SSLC examination. The then Headmaster of Sri Potti Sriramulu High School, Ananthapur entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1950 instead of original date of birth to avoid loss of academic year.
3. At the time of admission into MBBS course, the petitioner came to know about the wrong recording of date of birth, but he did not apply for change of date of birth with an apprehension that in case the original date of birth is restored, the petitioner is ineligible due to under age to study the medicine course. After joining into service, the petitioner vigorously made attempts to restore the original date of birth in the records, but he could not succeed in getting the date of birth corrected in the records. The petitioner could not trace out any date of birth records in Municipal Office of Tadipatri, hence, he did not apply for change of date of birth while in Government service within the time limitation and subsequently the petitioner retired from the Government service after attaining age of Superannuation on 30.06.2008 based on the date of birth recorded in SSLC register.
4. Recently, the petitioner found some old records pertaining to his original date of birth while shifting his residence, where it was recorded that the original date of birth is 05.05.1952. On finding such record, the petitioner became sentimental to acquire the original date of birth to enable to keep the same for record purpose, which is useful to the petitioner for future generation for preparation of Kundali and Jathakam accurately.
5. It is specifically contended that after obtaining the certificate for original date of birth, the petitioner will not challenge in Court of law against Government or any agency to claim any benefit as he retired from service on 30.06.2008 on attaining Superannuation as per the SSLC record. The petitioner filed W.P.No.8002 of 2019 before this Court to consider the representation dated 01.05.2019 and the same was disposed of by this Court, whereunder a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 01.05.2019. Immediately, the petitioner approached respondent No.2, who stated that no entry is available in the birthday register of 1950 maintained by respondent No.2. Subsequently, the petitioner approached respondent No.4, who is the competent authority to issue birth certificate to the petitioner in case the records are not traced out by respondent No.2. But respondent No.4 assigned the duty to respondent No.5 to verify the records. Accordingly, respondent No.5 verified the records and sent the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector to respondent No.4. As per the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.05.1952, but the same was not considered by respondent No.4. Therefore, sought for a direction as stated above.
6. During hearing, Sri K. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if date of birth is changed from 01.07.1950 to original date of birth i.e. 05.05.1952, the petitioner will not get any benefit as he already retired from service in the year 2008, it is only to maintain record as sentiment, therefore, requested to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioner.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue contended that no such direction need be issued as respondent No.4 is not competent to issue such birth certificate making certain alterations. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and requested to dismiss the petition.
8
