SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Mrs Saraswathi S P W/o Late Shanthakumar S- Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 26850 of 2018 (LB-BMP)
Decided on : 08-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. K.V. MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that procedure should yield to the greater cause of justice and not cause injustice.

Headnote:

Death Certificate - Issuance - Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 - Rule 7 - Form 4A - The court held that the insistence on a certificate in Form 4A, requiring medical certification, was completely unsustainable and would amount to injustice. The court emphasized that procedure should yield to the greater cause of justice and not cause injustice. The court directed the respondent to issue the necessary death certificate within 30 days.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

    a. Issue a writ in nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order/s by quashing the endorsement dated 06.01.2018 issued by the Respondent No.3 Health Officer, Mahalakshimpuram Region, BBMP produced at Annexure-A and allow this petition directing the Respondent No.3 to register and issue the Death Certificate of petitioner’s husband Mr.Shanthakumar S/o Mr. Siddappa.

b. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner’s husband, an excavator operator with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), was washed away in heavy rain while working in a stormwater drain on 20.05.2017. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) of BBMP had ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs which was paid to the petitioner. An FIR in Crime No.178/2017 was registered with Mahalakshmipuram Police Station. Mahalakshmipuram Police Station have on 27.03.2018, issued an endorsement that the body of the husband of the petitioner was not found. The petitioner, having been requesting for issuance of a death certificate in respect of her husband, the said death certificate not having been issued, is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. Sri.B.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the death of the husband of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent authorities themselves by making payment of compensation amount and there being extensive news coverage as regards the incident both in English and Kannada newspapers and the body of the husband of the petitioner having been washed away in stormwater drain and not having been found, the respondent ought to have acted and issued the death certificate.

4. Sri.K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for BBMP would submit that there is a procedure which is required to be followed for the purpose of issuance of death certificate inasmuch as in terms of Rule 7 of Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (for short, ‘Rules’), a certificate as to cause of death is required to be issued under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Rules in Form No.4 where the death occurs in hospitals and in Form No.4A in case of death occurring in other places. It is only on that basis that an application for the issuance of a death certificate can be considered. No body has been found if the husband were to return alive, the death certificate would be false. He submits that since no such certificate has been produced by the petitioner, the respondent is unable to issue a certificate.

5. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable to obtain such death certificate since there is no body which is available for a medical practitioner to examine the body and issue a certificate. On this ground, he submits that the respondent ought to issue a death certificate.

6. Heard Sri.B.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for BBMP and perused the papers.

7. The death report is required to be submitted in Form 2. The said report reads as under:-

8. A perusal of the said report would indicate that the personal details of the deceased have to be stated along with the informant details.

9. It is further required for statistical information that the medical attention received by the deceased be, whether the death was medically certified, name of the deceased and actual cause of death are to be stated. This death report does not require any certification by either a hospital or doctor. However, it is stated that the death report is required to be accompanied by Form 4 or Form 4A, which is a cause of concern in the present matter, which reads as under:-

10. Rule 7 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 is reproduced hereunder for easy referenc

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      Judicial Analysis

      AI

      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top