2014 Supreme(HP) 786
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma & Sureshwar Thakur, JJ.
Nain Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others – Respondents
CWP No. 8186 of 2013
Decided On : 7.7.2014
For Petitioner:Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Addl. A.G. and Mr. M.A. Khan, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vivek S. Attri, Dy. A.G.
Procedural requirements under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2003 for birth registration.
Headnote:
Birth Registration - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, Rule 5, Rule 9 - The court ordered the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities for the registration of his son's name in the Panchayat Record, emphasizing the procedural requirements under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2003.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner found a newly born child outside a temple, adopted the child, and sought to register the child's name in the Panchayat record. Despite various attempts, the name of the petitioner's son had not been registered in the Gram Panchayat.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities for the registration of his son's name in the Panchayat Record.
Issues: Failure to register the name of the petitioner's son in the Gram Panchayat despite attempts and the procedural requirements for birth registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the procedural requirements under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2003, and directed the petitioner to follow the prescribed procedure for registration.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities for the registration of his son's name in the Panchayat Record.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. On the oral application of Ms. Archna Dutt, learned Advocate, respondent No.3 is ordered to be substituted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paonta Sahib and the Chief Registrar (Births and Deaths) and District Registrar (Births and Deaths), are ordered to be arrayed as respondents No. 5 and 6.
2. Petitioner found a newly born child outside Bhagyani Temple, Haripurdhar, District Hamirpur. He adopted the child. He got published the news in the gazette of Himachal Pradesh on 13.5.2006 for information of public at large that Master Naresh is his son. The petitioner also approached the Executive Magistrate, Shillai seeking direction to the concerned Gram Panchayat to enter name and date of birth of his son in the Panchayat record. The Executive Magistrate passed necessary orders on 11.7.2006. The Gram Panchayat, Shri Kyari, passed a resolution dated 4.1.2009. Petitioner also made representation before the SDO, Paonta Sahib on 6.4.2011. However, fact of the matter is that till date, name of petitioner’s son has not been registered in the Gram Panchayat Shri Kyari.
3. Respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat Shri Kyari filed a detailed reply. Respondent No.4 has sought clarification from the District Registrar (Births and Deaths), District Sirmaur at Nahan whether the name of the petitioner’s son could be registered or not on the basis of the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate, Shillai. The District Registrar (Births and Deaths) informed respondent No.4 vide communication dated 2.8.2006 that the Executive Magistrate, Shillai could not order registration of the birth of the petitioner’s son in the Panchayat record without following the procedure provided under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience) was required to be followed.
4. The State of Himachal Pradesh has framed the Rules called the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the sake of convenience). These Rules were notified on 31.1.2003. As per Rule 5, the information required to be given to the Registrar under Section 8 or 9 of the Act, as the case may be, is to be in Form Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the registration of a birth, death and still birth respectively. The information is to be given within 21 days from the date of birth, death and still birth.
5. Rule 9 reads as under:-
9. Authority for delayed registration and fee –
(1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified in rule 5, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of a late fee of rupee two.
(2) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only with the written permission of the District Registrar, Births and Deaths concerned on payment of late fee of Rs.5/-.
(3) For the birth or death events which have not been registered within one year, from its occurrence, the concerned District Registrar of births and deaths after having been satisfied shall send the case to the Chief Registrar (births and deaths) along with his recommendations for transmitting the same to the Magistrate of the First Class for verifying the correctness of the birth or death. Thereupon, the Magistrate of the First Class shall pass an order for registration of such event of birth or death to the concerned Registrar on payment of a late fee of Rs.10/-.
6. It is evident from sub-rule 3 of Rule 9, if the birth and death has not been registered within one year from the occurrence, the concerned District Registrar (births and deaths) after satisfying himself is required to send the case to the Chief Registrar (Births and Deaths) along with his recommendations. Thereafter, the Chief Registrar (Births and Deaths) is required to transmit the case to the Magistrate of the first class for veri