Disposed

Archana Reji v. Thakazhy Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/3338/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the incorrect date of birth recorded in her birth certificate issued by the Panchayat. The court directed the Panchayat to conduct a limited enquiry, considering the petitioner's representations and allowing her to adduce oral evidence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to conduct a limited enquiry, consider representations (Exhibits P4/P5), and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Archana Reji Vs Thakazhy Grama Panchayat — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.3338 OF 2021(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ARCHANA REJI, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.REJI SAGAR, MAMMOTTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANVANDOOR, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689 109. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THAKAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA-688 562, REP.BY THE SECRETARY.

¶10

2 THAKAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITEE, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA 688 562, REP.BY THE ITS PRESIDENT.

¶11

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.DARSAN SOMANATH R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.RAFEEZ NOOH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.3338 OF 2021

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 08th day of March 2021

¶17

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the

¶18

non consideration of Exhibit P5 representation submitted by her to the 1^st respondent Panchayath.

¶19

According to the petitioner, she was born on 07-11-1996, at around 10.30 p.m. in a hospital at

¶20

Edathua. But at that time the hospital authorities

¶21

recorded the date of birth wrongly as 08-11-1996 in their registers. Resultantly, the birth certificate, which is Exhibit P1 was issued by the 1^st respondent

¶22

showing the wrong date of birth as 08-11-1996,

¶23

instead of 07-11-1996.

¶24

According to the petitioner her actual date of birth is 07-11-1996 as evident from Exhibit P2

¶25

Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Exhibit P3, Passport. A representation was submitted by her father as Exhibit P4 before the Panchayath. She has also submitted an application before the Panchayath

¶26

WP(C).No.3338 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

as Exhibit P5.

¶29

It seems that there are 2 records available

¶30

showing different dates of birth. Exhibit P1

¶31

indicating date of birth as 08-11-1996 and Exhibits P2 and P3 showing date of birth as 07-11-1996. In

¶32

such circumstances, evidently, the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 and the Rules there under permit the Authority to conduct a limited enquiry

¶33

and to pass appropriate orders. It seems that the hospital record indicates the date of birth as 08-11-1996. Evidently, this being the first

¶34

available record, necessarily it should have some

¶35

weight over the other documents whose entries were made subsequently.

¶36

petitioner, referring to the time of birth as, late

¶37

night, referred to the possibility of various reasons contributing to a bonafide mistake in

¶38

mentioning the date of birth. According to the

¶39

petitioner, the time of birth was around 10.30 p.m.,

¶40

and accordingly the possibility of the next date

¶41

WP(C).No.3338 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

being entered could not be ruled out. Essentially

¶44

this requires a limited inquiry, to enable the

¶45

petitioner to bring in materials which should be sufficient and satisfactory to displace the data mentioned in the hospital records. This may take the form of oral evidence of the persons who are

¶46

conversant with the actual date of birth of the respondent or affidavits of the neighbours who are also conversant with the above fact.

¶47

Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that

¶48

the 1^st respondent shall consider Exhibit P4 representation as expeditiously as possible and after conducting a limited enquiry as contemplated

¶49

under the statute and Rules, including giving a

¶50

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to let in evidence in support of her case. It is submitted by

¶51

the learned counsel for the respondents that

¶52

Exhibits P4 and P5 representations have not been

¶53

received. Hence the petitioner is directed to

¶54

submit a copy of the above applications as

¶55

WP(C).No.3338 OF 2021

¶56

¶57

expeditiously as possible before the respondents. If such an application is filed, this enquiry as mentioned above shall be completed within six weeks

¶58

thereafter and appropriate orders passed.

¶59

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

¶62

SSK/08/03

¶63

WP(C).No.3338 OF 2021

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX

¶66

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF	BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF	THE SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF	PASSPORT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY O	F REPRESENTATION FILED BY FATHER OF
	PETITIONER ON	07.11.2020.

¶68

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT ON 30.1.2021.

¶69

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶70

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Archana Reji v. Thakazhy Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Reji v. Thakazhy Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tibin James Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Jose V.C. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Ragesh R.I. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Chamukuttan Vs the Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate

Salim K.B. Vs Registering Authority

K.P.Antony Vs the Secretary