Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 375
High Court Of Calcutta
J. K. BISWAS
KANAILAL HAZRA - Appellant
Versus
SSTATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 7814 Of 2003
Decided On : 07/30/2003
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.3(3)(a), S.20
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS ACT : S.13(3)
Headnote
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS ACT, 1969 - SECTION 13(3) - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF BIRTH AFTER ONE YEAR - ORDER OF MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS NECESSARY - DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PASS SUCH ORDER - CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH ISSUED WITHOUT PROPER ORDER IS VOID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to correct his date of birth recorded in his Madhyamik Pariksha certificate issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. He relied on a certificate of birth obtained in 1991, which recorded his date of birth as December 21, 1973, while the certificate issued by the Board recorded his date of birth as November 21, 1969. The Board rejected his request, holding that the certificate of birth was not a contemporaneous document and that the petitioner's claim was belated and lacked credibility.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the certificate of birth relied upon by the petitioner was void as it was not issued in accordance with the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The court found that the petitioner had not obtained an order from a Magistrate of the first class, as required under Section 13(3) of the Act, to register his birth after one year of its occurrence. The court also found that the District Magistrate, who had passed an order in this case, was not authorized to do so as only a Judicial Magistrate of the first class had the authority to pass such an order.
Issues: 1. Whether the certificate of birth obtained by the petitioner was valid and could be relied upon to correct his date of birth in the Madhyamik Pariksha certificate. 2. Whether the petitioner's claim that he was born on December 21, 1973, was credible and supported by reliable evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and held that a birth or death that has not been registered within one year of its occurrence can only be registered on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death. 2. The court found that the petitioner had not obtained an order from a Magistrate of the first class, as required under Section 13(3), and therefore the certificate of birth relied upon by him was void and could not be relied upon to correct his date of birth in the Madhyamik Pariksha certificate. 3. The court also found that the petitioner's claim that he was born on December 21, 1973, was not credible and was not supported by reliable evidence. The court noted that the petitioner had made a belated claim to change his date of birth, and that if his claimed date of birth were to be accepted, he would not have been eligible for admission to Class I.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the Board rejecting his request to correct his date of birth in the Madhyamik Pariksha certificate.
DIPAK MUKHERJEE, N.C.GANGULY, RAJIB MUKHERJEE, TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, TULSHI DAS MAITY
( 1 ) THE petitioner felt aggrieved by a decision dated January 9, 2003 (Annexure-'p8' ). It was given by the competent authority of the West Bengal Board of secondary Education (in short 'the Board' ).
( 2 ) THE petitioner passed the Madhyamik pariksha (Secondary Examination) from the board by appearing at such examination held in the month of March, 1988. On the basis of his own declaration regarding his date of birth, in the concerned certificate the board recorded his date of birth as November 21, 1969. Long thereafter a certificate of birth dated November 22, 1991 was obtained by him from the authority under The registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. In this certificate, on November 1, 1991, his date of birth was registered as December 21, 1973. On the basis of such certificate he applied to the Board for correction of his date of birth recorded in the certificate issued by the Board in connection with his passing the Madhyamik Pariksha in the year 1988. By the impugned order the Board rejected such prayer by giving detail reasons.
( 3 ) IT appears that in view of the provisions contained in Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the petitioner, on the facts of his case, could get his date of birth registered with the registering authority only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth. In the petitioner's case this statutory requirement became necessary because only in 1991 he wanted to get his date of birth registered stating that he was born on december 21, 1973.
( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further it will be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It reads as follows : sec. 13 (3) :"any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. "
( 5 ) THE petitioner's learned counsel submits that the date of birth was duly registered, as the District Magistrate had passed the necessary order. Besides the fact that no such order has been produced, the contention warrants just summary rejection, as it is totally misconceived. The District Magistrate had no power to pass an order under section 13 (3 ). Such order was required to be passed only by a first class Magistrate, that is, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class and not by any Executive Magistrate. In view of Section 3 (3) (a) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, the reference to a Magistrate of the first class in the Registration of births and Deaths Act, 1969, has to be construed as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. The District Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate in terms of section 20 of the Code. Hence he was not the authority to pass the required order under Section 13 (3 ). The admitted position is that the petitioner never applied to any authority for an order under Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
( 6 ) IT is therefore clear that the birth certificate on which the petitioner relied is a void document. It is no certificate in the eye of law. It was issued illegally. No reliance can be placed on such an illegal certificate.
( 7 ) MINUS the certificate of birth, which is the main plank of the petitioner's claim that he was born on December 21, 1973, and principally on the basis whereof he requested the Board for correction of his date of birth recorded in the certificate issued by it, there is hardly any other reliable material in support of his claim.
( 8 ) AFTER making investigation into the. matter, the Board recorded the following findings : the petitioner stated that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Admission Register of Raskundu High School as 21
