No cause of action forthcoming in the suit hence not maintainable.

1. The 4th defendant is the appellant.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.114 of 1999 for a declaration that the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.234 of 1997, dated 17.11.1998 by the 2nd respondent herein is null and void and directing the 3rd respondent to cancel the birth certificate issued by him. The reason for the suit seems to be the apprehension of the 1st respondent that the appellant herein may defeat his promotional chances. It appears that the 1st respondent is in the Fire Service Department of the Government of Pondicherry and the Assistant Divisional Fire Officer is the next avenue of promotion for him. This is a single isolated post. The 1st respondent appears to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Fire Officer with effect from 28.4.1993. The appellant herein is a Station Officer in the Fire Service Department. Persons who belong to the Scheduled Caste and of Pondicherry origin are preferred in appointment and promotion to Scheduled Caste who are migrants. The appellant had applied for registration of his birth and a certificate was issued on 5.12.1998, registering the birth of the appellant in Villanur Commune, Pondicherry. The suit has been filed to declare this order as void.

3. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a written statement stating that they have the power to perform certain acts with regard to registration of births and deaths and accordingly, an order was passed in Crl.M.P.No.234 of 1997 on an application made by the appellant under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It was also stated that this is a judicial order and cannot be declared as null and void in a Civil Court. The 4th respondent herein filed the written statement, stating the above facts and also that the suit was barred by virtue of Sec.28(1)(2) of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

4. The appellant herein filed his written statement denying that he was a native of

Tamilnadu. The written statement also referred to an interim injunction issued by this Court, restraining the 2nd respondent herein from reverting the 1st respondent from the post of Assistant Divisional Fire Officer. In these circumstances, this suit as well as the petition for interim injunction was not maintainable. The appellant denied that he was a native of Tamil Nadu and that he was a migrant of Pondicherry. According to him, he was a native of Pondicherry.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. Against that, an appeal was filed. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal on the ground that inspite of the bar placed on the power of Court, the orders passed under the Act can be challenged. He also directed that the issues already cast by the trial Court should be rearranged and remanded the matter. Aggrieved by this, the present C.M.A., has been filed.

6. Mr.Sivashanmugam, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was clearly not maintainable and the order of the trial Court should be confirmed by setting aside the order of the appellate Court. The learned counsel referred to the various provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter called “the Act”). It is seen from G.O.Ms.No.191/LAD Pondicherry, dated 29.8.1983 that the 3rd respondent has been empowered to perform the functions stipulated in the said G.O. The order states that any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of the occurrence shall be registered within one year of the occurrence shall be registered on an order made by a Magistrate of the 1st class after verifying occurrence of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. The question of entrusting the functions under Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.13 of the Act to the Executive Magistrate was considered by the Lieutenant Governor of Pondicherry and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum- Sub-Deputy Collector, (Revenue), Pondicherry was conferred the powers to perform the aforesaid fu