Disposed

Sachin Pawankumar Lath v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2010WP/1418/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition seeking a birth certificate. The court held that since the birth occurred over a year ago, the petitioner must first approach a Magistrate under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, before approaching the Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Magistrate under Section 13(3) RBD Act first. Writ petition disposed of.

Sachin Pawankumar Lath Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

mss

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \ ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1418 OF 2010

¶4

SACHIN S/o PAWANKUMAR LATH .. PETITIONER

¶5

Vs.

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. M. Sayed, AGP

¶9

Ms. K. Punjabi for MMC

¶10

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 14/9/2010

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The petitioner has prayed that a direction be given to the 2^nd

¶13

respondent Corporation to issue necessary birth certificate certifying

¶14

the birth of the petitioner as on 12/7/1981. Affidavit is filed by Dr. P.

¶15

¶16

OSWP+1418

¶17

S. Khullar, who is working as M.O.H. P/North Ward, Malad, Mumbai, on behalf of the Corporation. Paragraph 5 thereof states as under:

¶18

“I say and submit that as per the procedure followed by these respondents, a child is born at home and one year has already lapsed then one has to obtain Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Order under Section 13(3) RBD Act, 1969 and has to further pay Rs.55/- as late registration fees after the Court’s Order.”

¶19

Admittedly under Section 13(3) of The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (“the said Act”) “Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee”.

¶20

The petitioner will have to, therefore, first approach the concerned Magistrate for an appropriate order under Section 13(3) of the said Act. Thereafter the petitioner may approach the Corporation.

¶21

¶22

OSWP+1418

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 3 of the said Act.

¶24

In view of these statements it is not necessary to keep this petition pending.

¶25

If the petitioner files any application before the concerned Magistrate as stated by counsel for the petitioner, learned Magistrate shall deal with it in accordance with law.

¶26

Needless to say that after the concerned Magistrate passes an appropriate order, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Corporation and the Corporation will, thereafter pass order in accordance with law.

¶27

7. The petition is disposed of.

¶28

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

(R. V. MORE, J.)

OSWP+1418

OSWP+1418

Sachin Pawankumar Lath v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Pawankumar Lath v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkutir Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and 13 Ors.

Jayram a. Shetty and Anr. Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 9 Ors.

The Greater Bombay Veershaiv C. H. Socity Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 10 Ors.

Ahimsa Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganpatrao Shankarrao Gulave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganpatrao Shankarrao Gulave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.