Allowed

Vaishak N Naik v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2023WP/12418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court allowed a petition challenging an endorsement refusing to enter the petitioner's name in the birth register. The Court granted relief despite the late filing, applying principles from a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement set aside; petitioner's name to be entered in register and birth certificate to be issued under Section 14 of the Act r/w Rule 10.

Vaishak N Naik Vs Bruhat Bengaluru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25264 WP No. 12418 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 12418 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VAISHAK N NAIK S/O NIRANJAN P NAIK,AND SAVITHA V NAIK AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT NUMBER 88B, 22^ND CROSS, NEAR NAVARANG THEATRE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A V AMARNATHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶14

B.B.M.P OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 (REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER)

¶15

JOINT DIRECTOR (STATISTICS) BBMP SHOPPING COMPLEX BEHIND UPPERPETE POLICE STATION, SUBHASNAGAR, BENGALURU-560001 REP BY AUHTORISED OFFICER

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:25264 WP No. 12418 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 06.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNX-C BEARING NO. SJ DS PR 19/2022-23 AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REGISTER IN TERMS OF SECTION 14 OF THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS ACT 1969 READ WITH RULE 10 OF THE KARNATAKA REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS RULES AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶23

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned

¶24

endorsement dated 06.06.2023 given by the respondent, Registrar of Births and Deaths, rejecting the application of the petitioner wherein the name of the petitioner was sought to be shown in the birth certificate.

¶25

The petitioner contends that he was born on 16.11.2004 to Sri Niranjan.P.Naik and Smt.Savitha.V.Naik at Varalakshmi Nurshing Home, Rajajinagara, Bengaluru. The birth of the petitioner was registered with the

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25264 WP No. 12418 of 2023

¶27

respondent and the certificate of birth as prescribed under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioner’s parents.

¶28

The petitioner gave an application to the 2^nd respondent - Joint Director (Statistics), BBMP seeking to show the name of the petitioner in the birth certificate. The 2^nd respondent issued the impugned endorsement declining to enter the name of the petitioner in the birth certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is no res integra . This Court in the case of

¶29

Ms.Alka Nagaraj Simha vs. The Registrar of Births

¶30

and Deaths in W.P.No.13692/2020 has considered similar endorsement issued by the respondent authorities and while quashing the endorsement, this court issued directions to the authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the Register in terms of Section 14 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 R/w Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules,

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25264 WP No. 12418 of 2023

¶32

Learned counsel seeks similar relief to the petitioner.

¶33

This Court finds that as in the case of Ms.Alka Nagaraj Simha, the petitioner filed an application beyond the period of 15 years prescribed in the Rules, nevertheless, the benefit given to the writ petitioner in the said case is also required to be given to the petitioner.

¶34

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned endorsement dated 06.06.2023 is hereby set aside. The name of the petitioner shall be entered in the register in terms of Section 14 of the Act r/w Rule 10 of the Rules, 1999. Thereafter birth certificate showing the name of the petitioner shall be issued to the petitioner forthwith.

¶35

Ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

KLY

Vaishak N Naik v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishak N Naik v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr K Venkatachalam Vs the Commissioner

Raymond Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Pavan Bhadraiah Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike

M/S Popular Advertisers Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chinnaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lehari Damji Patel Vs the Hoskote Yojana Pradhikara