IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19870 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT CHAITRA K W/O LATE SHESHAKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO 3-66A, KOLLAGADDA, AIVTHOKLU, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN-574 232 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHARMAPALA GOWDA A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 Digitally signed by 2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, SUMA AND SUB- REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, Location:

WENLOCK DISTRICT HOSPITAL, HIGH COURT OF MANGALORE-575 001 KARNATAKA

3. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION DA- KA DISTRICT, PIN-275 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE FRESH DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE SHESHAKUMAR BY MENTIONING / CORRECTING HIS FATHER'S NAME AS KUSHALAPPA GOWDA ANNEXURE-A OR ANY SUCH ORDER OR DIRECTION WHICH DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue a fresh death certificate of Late.Sheshakumar correcting his father’s name.

2. The petitioner claims that her father met with an accident on 08.03.2025 and was admitted at Wenlock District Hospital at Mangalore and he died the next day. She claims that when he was admitted, his father’s name was wrongly mentioned as Shivappa Gowda instead of Kushalappa Gowda. The petitioner approached the respondent No.2 for correcting the entries. However, they declined it on the ground that they are not authorised in law to do so. Following this, the petitioner submitted further representations requesting the respondents to correct the name of her father in the death certificate. The said representation was forwarded to the respondent No.3 for needful action. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue a fresh death certificate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submission and submitted that the respondents may be direct carry out corrections in the death certificate.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, contended that procedure is prescribed under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1969' for short), for correction of errors in the birth and death certificate. He therefore contends that it is for the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.3 and furnish justifiable grounds for correction of the entries in the death certificate.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

6. The petitioner has claimed that her father’s name was wrongly shown as Shivappa Gowda in the death certificate instead of Kushalappa Gowda. If she wanted any correction in the death certificate, she ought to have approached the respondent No.3 as provided under Section 15 of the Act, 1969 and not the respondent No.2.

7. Be that as it may, since respondent No.2 has now forwarded the request of the petitioner to the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same in accordance with law. In order to hasten the process, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.3 on 31.10.2025 at 3.00 p.m. and produce all materials in her possession to establish that her father's name is Kushalappa Gowda and not Shivappa Gowda. The respondent No.3 shall then proceed to pass appropriate orders for correction if the petitioner is entitled to. This shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of the petitioner appearing befor