Ibrahim Shamshuddin Shaikh vs District Health Officer and District Registrar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ibrahim Shamshuddin Shaikh vs District Health Officer and District Registrar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the District Registrar to furnish to the petitioner a copy of the reasoned order on his Section 25A appeal within one week, or, if no reasoned order has been passed till date, to pass the reasoned order and furnish its copy within one week; the petitioner left at liberty to prefer a further appeal before the Chief Registrar under Section 25A(1)(ii).

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, informed only through a communication that his appeal against cancellation of the death certificate has been decided, is entitled to be furnished the reasoned order so as to enable him to assail the order passed by respondent No.1 before the Second Appellate Authority. +1 more

Court's answer

Though the impugned communication was addressed to the petitioner, the reasoned order passed on his appeal has not been served on him; in the absence of the reasoned order the petitioner is not in a position to assail the order passed by respondent No.1 before the Second Appellate Authority.

Ratio / Principle

The very fact that an appeal is provided against an action or order of the Registrar implies that the Appellate Authority ought to pass an order which spells out reasons, howsoever brief; therefore, the submission that the Appellate Authority was not required to record any reason at all (on the ground that the District Registrar and Chief Registrar do not discharge quasi-judicial functions) cannot be acceded to.

Key takeaways

Since there is a further appeal before the Chief Registrar under Section 25A(1)(ii), the District Registrar is directed to furnish a copy of the reasoned order to the petitioner within one week; in the event no reasoned order has been passed till date, such reasoned order is to be passed and its copy furnished to the petitioner within one week; the petitioner would thereafter be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Chief Registrar if aggrieved by the said reasoned order.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 15538 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, N. J. Jamadar, J., decided 01-12-2025) — disposed. Ibrahim Shamshuddin Shaikh, who by an order dated 28-07-2025 in WP/10207/2025 had obtained liberty (with delay beyond 30 days condoned) to appeal under Section 25A of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 against the Medical Officer's order cancelling the death certificate of Jaibunissa Yassin Inamdar, was merely informed by a communication dated 13-10-2025 of respondent No.1 – District Registrar that his appeal had been decided, without the reasoned order being communicated. Held: (i) the provision of an appeal against an action or order of the Registrar implies that the Appellate Authority must pass a reasoned order, howsoever brief — the contention urged by counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the District Registrar and Chief Registrar, not discharging quasi-judicial functions, need not record any reason was rejected; (ii) absent the reasoned order the petitioner could not assail the decision before the Chief Registrar, the second appellate authority. Directed: the District Registrar to furnish a copy of the reasoned order within one week, or, if none has been passed till date, to pass it and furnish its copy within one week; petitioner thereafter free to appeal before the Chief Registrar under Section 25A(1)(ii). Petition disposed.

Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSHSUBHASH SUBHASH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date:2025.12.01 18:51:34 +0530

41-WP15538-2025.DOC

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 15538 OF 2025

Ibrahim Shamshuddin Shaikh

...Petitioner

Versus

Nashik Diocesan Council and ors. …Respondents

Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, a/w Sujay Palshikar, for the Petitioner. Smt. Madhubala Kajle, ‘B’ Panel Advocate a/w M. S. Srivastava, for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.

Mr. R. D. Soni, i/b Ram & Co., for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 1^st DECEMBER, 2025

Oral Order:-

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this petition is to a communication dated 13^th October, 2025, whereby respondent No.1 – District Registrar

has informed the Advocate for the petitioner that, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against cancellation of the death certificate of Jaibunissa Yassin Inamdar has been decided.

By an order dated 28^th July, 2025, this Court had disposed WP/10207/2025 filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Medical Officer cancelling the death certificate of Jaibunissa Yassin Inamdar.

1/4

41-WP15538-2025.DOC

In the said order, this Court had noted that the said order was amenable to appeal under Section 25A of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The petitioner was, thus, granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority; the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of 30 days was condoned and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, by the impugned communication, the petitioner has been informed that the appeal has been decided. However, the reasoned order or decision has not been communicated to the petitioner.

Under the provisions of Section 25A of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, any person aggrieved by any action or order by the Registrar, may prefer an appeal to the District Registrar, and by an order of the District Registrar, to the Chief Registrar.

In the instant case, though the impugned communication has been addressed to the petitioner it does not appear that the reasoned order has been served to the petitioner. In the absence of the reasoned order, the petitioner is not in a position

2/4

41-WP15538-2025.DOC

to assail the order passed by respondent No.1 before the Second Appellate Authority.

Mr. Soni, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, would urge that the District Registrar and the Chief Registrar do not discharge quasi judicial functions and, therefore, an adjudication was not warranted.

The very fact that an appeal is provided against an action or order of the Registrar implies that the Appellate Authority ought to pass an order which spells out reasons, howsoever brief they may be. Therefore, the submission that the Appellate Authority was not required to record any reason at all cannot be acceded to.

Since there is a further appeal before the Chief Registrar under Section 25A(1)(ii), this Court considers it appropriate to direct the District Registrar to furnish a copy of the reasoned order within a period of one week to the petitioner.

In the event, the District Registrar has not passed a reasoned order till date, such reasoned order be passed and its copy be furnished to the petitioner, within a period of one week.

3/4

41-WP15538-2025.DOC

The petitioner would be, thereafter, at liberty to prefer an

appeal before the Chief Registrar, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said reasoned order.

The petition stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

4/4