IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR th ON THE 4 OF JULY, 2023 REVIEW PETITION No. 789 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHAMBAL DIVISION, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION DEHAT, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (SHRI M.P.S. RAGHUVANSHI – ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR PETITIONERS/STATE )

AND KALLU KHAN S/O SHRI AASIN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB, R/O DWARIKAPURI, WARD NO.13, MOH, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (SHRI H.K. SHUKLA – ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA passed the following:

ORDER

I.A. No.2735 of 2022 an application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and consequently the delay of 34 days occurred in filing the present review petition stands condoned.

The State of Madhya Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, is before this Court seeking review of the order dated 11.02.2022 passed in WA No. 120 of

2021.

2. Before dwelling upon the contentions advanced by the Additional Advocate General, Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, it is expedient to reiterate the factual matrix that led to preference of the writ appeal before the Division Bench.

3. A Writ Petition bearing number 1714 of 2020, at the instance of one Kallu Khan, styling himself as the brother of the missing corpus Ms. X, had been filed before the learned Single Judge seeking writ of habeas corpus, inter alia, alleging that Ms. X was in illegal confinement of respondents No.5, 6, 7 and 8. On notice, besides State, private respondents also appeared. The corpus was also recovered and produced. The police investigation report suggested that as per the Class VII mark-sheet of the corpus her date of birth was 06.07.2001 and as such she was major as on the date 01.12.2019. However, the petitioner therein produced a certificate of birth issued after 17 years of the birth of the missing corpus by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Mau, District Bhind (M.P.) on 22.06.2020 wherein her date of birth was shown to be 02.05.2003. As such she was shown to be minor on the date of incident. The learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the petitioner with the said document and found her to be major. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the corpus was set free.

4. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, brother of the corpus, preferred the intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order of the Single Bench and also that of a certificate of Class VII bearing date of birth of the corpus as 06.07.2001.

5. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to observe that neither before the writ court nor before the Division Bench, either party questioned the constitutional validity of Rule 9(3) of the M.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 (for brevity “1999 Rules”) framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers contained under Section 30 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short “1969 Act”) with the approval of the Central Government on the premise that the same runs contrary to the provisions contained under Section 13(3) of 1969 Act.

6. For ready reference and convenience, Rule 9(3) of 1999 Rules and Section 13(3) of 1969 Act are quoted below:-

Rule 9(3) of 1999 Rules “9. Authority for delayed registration and fee payable therefore.-

(1) XX XX XX (2) XX XX XX (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be r