APHC010054782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2863 of 2025 Between:

Pondrati Laxmi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K. DEVI PRASANNA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN. AND URBAN DEV.

2. A.S.C. BOSE, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following:

ORDER :

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“..to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the endorsement issued by the respondents vide proceedings R.C.No. VSP 202411192010 Dt. 25.11.2024 and in not issuing death certificate of her husband late Pondrati Dharma Rao to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of provisions of Sec. 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act (Act.No. 18 of 1969) and Sec. 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and consequently direct the respondents to issue death certificate of her husband late Pondrati Dharma Rao to the petitioner by setting aside the endorsement Dt. 25.11.2024.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development representing respondent No.1 and Mr. A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage was performed with one Pondrati Dharma Rao on 28.05.1981 as per Hindu rites and customs. Her husband passed away on 13.11.2024, while undergoing treatment in Queen’s NRI Hospital, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. After his death, the petitioner applied to the concerned authority for issuance of death certificate of her late husband and as the same was not furnished, she raised grievance in Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) at Zone-III, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, on 19.11.2024. In response thereto, the impugned Endorsement dated 25.11.2024 was issued by the Corporation, informing that as there is a dispute among family members of the deceased, the death certificate cannot be issued by their office until clearance of those family disputes. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is relevant in the present context and the same reads as under:

“Search of Births and Deaths Register:

1. Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the State Government, including rules relating to the payment of fees and postal charges, any person may-

(a) cause a search to be made by the Registrar for any entry in a register of births and deaths;

(b) obtain, electronically or otherwise, a certificate of birth or death from such register and issued in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that no certificate relating to any death, issued to any person, shall disclose the particulars regarding the cause of death as entered in the register.

2. All certificates given under this section shall be certified by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the State Government to give such extracts as provided in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), and shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates.”

5. As per the above provision, it is clear that the person who is recognized as Registrar for the purpose of registration of births and deaths is a public servant and the register where the births and deaths are noted, is a public document. Further, the above provision makes it clear that any person may obtain a certified extract from the register of births and deaths. It is the statutory duty of the respondent authorities to issue death certificate and there is no provision of law that prevents issuance of death certificate on