Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
N. Vedantam
Versus
Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Perungalathur & Another
W.P. No. 18187 of 2010 & connected M.Ps.
Decided On :Decided on : 10-12-2010
(B)Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969(18 of 1969)-Sec.7, 8-Birth-Death-Registration-Registrar-Jurisdiction- Information-Suspicion-Registration of information regarding the death of a person shall not be refused on the ground of suspicion on the cause of death.
It is to be noted that under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, there is no provision for conducting any enquiry as to the nature or cause of death. Whether the death is natural or otherwise, is not the criteria for registration under the Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the objections of the respondents, raising suspicion over the cause of death, is irrelevant. Para 21
(C)Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969(18 of 1969)-Sec.7, 8-Birth-Death-Vehicle-Train-Registration-Refusal-Information-Third party-Information regarding the death of a person in train shall not be refused to be registered merely because it was not given by the station master but by another.
Merely because the Station Master, Kanpur, has not given the information to the first respondent, it cannot be said, no other person can furnish the information about the death, which occurred in the train. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act or Rule 6 of the Rules, only casts a duty on the persons to give information. The rule only casts a duty on the abovesaid person to furnish the information and does not prohibit any other person from giving information. If such a narrow interpretation to the Sections and rule is given, then if the said persons fail to give information, then it cannot be contended that no registration of birth and death is permissible under the statutory provisions. Para 37
(D)Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969(18 of 1969)-Sec.7, 8-Birth-Death- Registration- Registrar-Jurisdiction-Cremation-Information regarding the death of a person can be directed to be registered even in the place where the body was cremated.
There shall be a direction to the respondents to register the death of the petitioner’s wife to issue the death certificate of late Mrs.Pankajam, wife of the petitioner, after obtaining a declaration from him for registration, to the effect that the particulars sought to be registered are true and correct and that the particulars have not been registered anywhere else in India and also that the same does not run in conflict with particulars registered by any other authority outside India. Para 39
The petitioner has challenged the communications of the respondents 1 and 2, dated 26.5.2010 and 9.6.2010 respectively, refusing to register the death of his wife, Ms. Pankajam in Chennai, as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently, sought for a direction to the respondents to issue the death certificate of late Ms. Pankajam.
2. According to the petitioners that on 2.5.2010, his wife, after visiting her first daughter’s house at New Delhi, took a train bearing No. 2391, from New Delhi to Patna to see her second daughter’s at Patna. On 3.5.2010, while in transit, she suddenly passed away in the train, due to heart attack. Thereafter, her body was taken to the nearest Kanpur Railway Station, where the Doctor and Station Master, confirmed her death. On receiving this information, the petitioner’s relatives in Lucknow immediately rushed to Kanpur Railway Station. On the same day, the Anatomical Society, Lucknow intimated to them that the petitioner’s wife’s body had been embalmed and was fit for transportation. Thereafter, it was transported to the residence in Chennai and after performing the last rites, her body was cremated within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Perungalathur, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, requesting him to issue death certificate for her death, after duly registering her demise in the records, as per the provisions of the abovesaid Act. In response to the above, the first respondent, by letter, dated 26.5.2010, informed the petitioner that as the death had not taken place within his jurisdiction, the same cannot be registered and as per the provisions of the Act, the Registrar can only record deaths that take place within his jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner requested his Nephew, Mr.Narayana Prasad, to send a representation on his behalf and vide letter dated 1.6.2010 and the same was sent to the Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, the second respondent, explaining the facts, as to how the death had occurred. Along with the representation, judgments of Gauhati High Court in (2006) Indlaw Guw 68 and Kerala High Court in Tessy P. Das v. Paippadu Grama Panchayat (2007) Indlaw Ker 1921 respectively. The second respondent has sent a reply, dated 9.6,2010, stating that as per Section 7(2) of the said Act, though the body was cremated within the jurisdiction of the respondents, the death ought to have been registered only in Kanpur, where it took place. Being aggrieved by the communications of the respondents stated supra, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief, as stated supra.
3. Referring to the statutory provisions of Sections 7 to 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plain reading of the first limb of Section 7(2) of the Act would itself make it clear that the respondents shall enter in the register all information given to him under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act. According to him, the second limb of Section 7(2) of the Act speaks not only the details of birth and death furnished to them, but also to take steps to register the particulars required. He therefore submitted that when the first respondent is statutorily bound to record the information regarding the birth, refusal of the same amounts to failure in discharging his statutory duties, which provides even punishment as per Section 23 of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have misinterpreted Section 7(2) of the Act to mean that the Registrar is liable to register the births and deaths, occurring only within his territorial jurisdiction and failed to consider that for the purpose of registration under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the question of the concerned event occurring wi
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
