SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 5

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Kanai Mallick v. State of Tripura and Others
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P. K. Ghosh
For the Respondents: Mr. N. C. Pal, Mr. B. Das, Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee

The Registrar's authority to register deaths is not limited by territorial boundaries if the deceased was a resident in the relevant jurisdiction during their lifetime.

Headnote:The Court interpreted the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, specifically Section 7, relating to the Registrar's authority over recording deaths. The petitioner sought a death certificate for a deceased registered resident. The Court found the Registrar competent to act on information, regardless of territorial limits, provided the individual was a resident of the given jurisdiction during their lifetime. The petitioner was thus entitled to obtain the death certificate pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. The writ petition was allowed.

Table of Content
1. the registrar's duty to issue death certificates. (Para 1 , 2)
2. interpretation of the statute's intent and coverage. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments regarding jurisdiction and authority. (Para 6 , 10)
4. court observations on legislative intent. (Para 7 , 9)
5. final directions to the registrar. (Para 11 , 12)

1. An interpretation of the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with regard to the contour of the power of the Registrar under S.7 of the Act would determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a death certificate of his father who died at Kolkata, from the Registrar in Tripura State, within whose jurisdiction, the deceased owned a house and was registered as a resident in the Panchayat ordinary resident register, during his life time. Under S.7, the Registrar appointed by the State Government is required to enter in the register maintained for the purpose informations given to him under S.8 or S.9 regarding births and deaths. Additionally, the Registrar is also required to take steps to inform himself of every birth and every death taking place in his jurisdiction and to ensure registration of such particulars.

2. The writ petition has been filed in the instant case on account of refusal by the Addl. District Registrar (BDO), Dukli, R. D. Block, Sadar to enter in the register the information pertaining to the death of Nityananda Mallik who was the father of the writ petitioner. It appears from the averments in the writ petition that deceased Nityananda Mallik was serving as a Constable under the Tripura Government and is a permanent resident of Singhamura village of Hapania Panchayat under Dukli Block of West Tripura district. As already noted the name of the deceased was entered before his death, in the Panchayat ordinary residents' register, which was maintained under the authority of the respondent No. 2. The deceased while undergoing treatment at BINR Hospital, Kolkata died on 3-3-2006 due to cardio respiratory failure. Following the death as aforesaid, the Medical Officer of the BINR hospital issued a death certificate dated 3-3-2006 (Annexure - 2) in respect of Nityananda Mallik, indicating therein that he was a resident of West Tripura district. Then an application dated 3-3-2006 (Annexure - 2A) was addressed by the Joint Resident Commissioner of Tripura Bhavan, Kolkata to the Officer - in - Charge, Bhawanipur Police Station, Kolkata requesting for 'No Objection' certificate to carry the dead body of Nityananda Mallik by air to Agartala for the purpose of cremation. On the basis of permission granted, the dead body was carried to Tripura and the deceased was cremated in his home village on 4-3-2006, within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, respondent No. 2. Thereafter, an application dated 12-5-2006 (Annexure 7A) was addressed to the Registrar for issuance of death certificate and the prescribed fee was also deposited through Treasury challan dated 16-5-2006, for the said purpose. However, the Registrar refused to register the death of deceased Nityananda Mallik on the ground that the death has not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Registrar and because of such refusal, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction on the Registrar to act in terms of the provisions under S.7(2) of the Act.

3. Before examining the scope and ambit of the powers of the Registrar, it might be appropriate to extract herein the relevant provisions of the Act the interpretation of which will have a material bearing in deciding the issues raised in the present petition:
"7. Registrars.-- (1) The State Government may appoint a Registrar for each local area comprising the area within the jurisdiction of a municipality, panchayat; or other local authority or any other area or a combination of any two or more of them :
Provided that the State Government may appoint in the case of a municipality, panchayat or other local authori


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top