Dismissed

Anita Lahkar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Aug 2022WP(C)/448/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking correction of the petitioner's date of birth in educational documents. The Court held the petition was not maintainable due to an inordinate lapse of 18 years without acceptable explanation, reflecting apparent negligence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed for want of maintainability due to inordinate delay.

Anita Lahkar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010012452022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/448/2022

¶5

ANITA LAHKAR D/O LATE SIDDHESWAR LAHKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMDAH, PO AMDAH, PS SARTHEBARI, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶8

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT

¶10

ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI 36

¶11

3:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS

¶12

BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM

¶13

BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 21

¶14

4:THE SECRETARY BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 21

¶15

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SARUKHETRI COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

¶16

SARTHEBARI

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

DIST BARPETA ASSAM 781307

¶19

6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶20

SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GHY-19

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶24

ORDER

¶25

17.08.2022

¶26

Heard Shri K. K. Handique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) as well as Shri S. Neogi, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department and Ms. S. Singhania, learned counsel representing the Health and Family Welfare Department.

¶27

Considering the subject matter involved, the present writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶28

The petitioner, who was born in the district of Barpeta claims her date of birth as 31.12.1990. The said date of birth was consistent with the School Admission Register and her birth certificate issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Health Services. She however contends that in her HSLC admit card and certificate, her date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 01.10.1985 instead of 31.12.1990. In the meantime, the petitioner after passing the HSLC examination was inducted in the Indian Army and is presently working there. The petitioner having come to know about the discrepancy has filed a representation before the respondent no. 3. As no

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

action was forthcoming, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶31

Shri Handique, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the inaction of the authorities to correct the date of birth, grave prejudice would be caused to him both in terms of tenure of service and other benefits.

¶32

On the other hand, Shri Roy, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the same has been filed after an inordinate and long delay which has not been explained. Shri Roy, learned Standing Counsel submits that the matriculation certificate was issued in the year 2005 itself wherein the date of birth was specifically written as 01.10.1985. Even on the Board of Secondary Education Certificate of Passing, the date of birth has been reflected as 01.10.1985. Since as per the petitioner, the date of birth were incorrectly reflected in the aforesaid documents, immediate steps should have been taken for correction which was not done in the instant case. It is submitted by Shri Roy, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA that the attempt for correction has been done after a lapse of about 18 years.

¶33

The rest of the respondents supported the stand of Shri Roy, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA.

¶34

A Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a Court of Equity, wherein the conduct of a person is of immense significance. In the instant case, it is seen that the writ petition which has been filed in the year 2022 is with regard to the correction of the date of birth after a lapse of almost 18 years. Apart from the fact that no acceptable reasons have been cited, the delay itself is absolutely inordinate and reflects lack of bona-fide on the part of the petitioner.

¶35

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that a Writ Court cannot be approached in the matter of this nature wherein the conduct of the petitioner reflects apparent negligence.

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is held to be devoid of merits and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Anita Lahkar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Lahkar v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Kabita Das Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bipasa Somim Alom Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Hafiz Idris Ali Ahmed Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Padmaraj Rj Vs Griham Foods and Hotel Pvt. Lmtd.

Narayan Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S Marajan Meen Palan Atma Sahayak Got Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.