Disposed

Mrs. Hyma C. Manual v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jul 2018WP(C)/19151/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding delayed issuance of birth certificate. Court clarified jurisdiction under Section 13(3) of Registration of Birth and Death Act, directing Revenue Divisional Officer to decide petitioner's application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Ordered that the 6th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer considers the petitioner's grievance and takes necessary action on the application within one month from the date of production of this judgm

Mrs. Hyma C. Manual Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 19151 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

HYMA C.MANUAL, W/O.NOBEL MATHEW, THAZHATHURUTHIL HOUSE, NAYARAPARA.P.O, IDUKKI 685 602.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON

¶9

SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI

¶10

RESPONDENTS :-

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001.

¶14

2. KATTAPPANA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI,

¶15

KERALA, PIN 685 508.

¶16

3. REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, KATTAPPANA MUNICIPALITY, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI,

¶17

KERALA PIN-685 508.

¶18

4. THE CHIEF REGISTRAR, PANCHAYAT DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶19

5. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶20

6. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶21

[U/S.13 [3] OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH AND DEATH ACT 1969],

¶22

IDUKKI, PIN 685 584.

¶23

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY R2 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM, SC, KATTAPPANA MUNICIPALITY

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No. 19151 of 2018 (T)

¶26

				APPENDIX
PETITIO	NER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	P1. COPY	OF	THE	SSLC CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT	P1(a). COPY	OF	THE	DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT	P2. COPY	OF	THE	RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT	P3. COPY	OF	THE	BAPTISM CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT	P4. COPY	OF	THE	AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY ROSAMMA.
EXHIBIT	P5. COPY	OF	THE	AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY VEHICLE DRIVER.
EXHIBIT	P6. COPY	OF	THE	AFFIDAVIT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P7. COPY	OF	THE	PASSPORT.

¶27

True copy

¶28

P.A. to Judge

¶29

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶30

W.P.(C)No.19151 of 2018

¶31

Dated this the 06^th day of July, 2018

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The prayers in this writ petition (civil) are as follows:-

¶34

“1) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application filed as per Exhibit P2 and issue the birth certificate to the petitioner with in time limit.

¶35

2) Issue an interim direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to file detailed report of actions taken upon ExP2.

¶36

3) Pass any other order or direction deems fit and proper to the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.”

¶37

Heard Sri.T.B.Shajimon, learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

writ petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 and Sri.Liji J.Vadakkedom, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kattappana Municipality appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶39

It is brought to the notice of this Court by all parties concerned that this Court while admitting this case had passed an order dated 13.06.2018 which reads as follows:

¶40

“The petitioner claims that she was born in a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KLI 2842 while her parents were travelling towards Kattapana. The birth was not reported to the Registrar of Birth and Death. Accordingly, the birth certificate would not available with the local authority. The petitioner now wants to go to Israel.

¶41

W.P.(C)No.19151 of 2018

¶42

..2..

¶43

2. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the municipality that they have already requested the police for getting information.

¶44

3. In such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent municipality shall issue non availability certificate, if it is not registered with them. Thereafter, the petitioner shall approach the 6^th respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, to pass appropriate orders to cause registration of birth with the Registrar. The municipality shall issue such non availability certificate within a period of one week and thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass appropriate orders within a further period of two weeks. Post after three weeks. ”

¶45

It is now submitted by all concerned that the competent authority to consider the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner is the 6^th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, in view of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 13(3) of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 which prescribes that if an application for registration of birth is made after one year from the occurrence of the birth, then such application can be considered only by the authorised officials mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government has issued G.O. (Rt.)No.124/1972/Home dated 02.08.1972 whereby it has been notified that officers of the rank of Revenue Divisional Officers are also authorised to take decisions in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 13.

¶46

..3..

¶47

W.P.(C)No.19151 of 2018

¶48

The learned Government Pleader submits that he has not been furnished instructions as to whether the 6^th respondent/RDO has already rendered a decision in the matter as required in the order dated 13.06.2018. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already submitted his application before the 6^th respondent/RDO, for registration of the birth and for the entry of the date of birth therein, in terms of the order dated 13.06.2018 rendered by this Court. If that is the position, it is ordered that the 6^th respondent/RDO will ensure that the grievances of the petitioner are considered for redressal and necessary action is taken on that application without much delay, in case decision in that regard has so far not been taken, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The decision in that regard will be duly communicated to the petitioner by sending the same by registered speed post.

¶49

With these observations and directions, the above writ petition (civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶50

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶51

skj

Mrs. Hyma C. Manual v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Hyma C. Manual v. the State of Kerala

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

Jabbar.a.K Vs State of Kerala

Apoy Alexander @ Alexander Vadakkedam Vs State Bank of India

Ponnamma George Vs Union of India

John Vs the State of Kerala

Shiny Joseph Vs Tahsildar

C.S.Sujith Vs Sub Registering Officer/Marriage Officer