Allowed

M.Moorthy, S/O.Muniyandi v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Feb 2018WP(MD)/1406/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directions for death certificate of his wife. Wife died in ambulance en route to hospital. Petitioner cremated body in his native place under Town Panchayat limits. Court identified competent authority based on cremation location.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent, Paravai Town Panchayat, to register the death and issue the death certificate to the petitioner.

M.Moorthy, S/O.Muniyandi Vs the District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

WP (MD) No.1406 of 2018

¶7

M.Moorthy

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Madurai-Corporation, (Death and Birth Registration Section) Madurai. 3.The Executive Officer, Paravai - Town Panchayat, Madurai District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to issue the death certificate to the petitioner's wife namely Kanimozhi, who died on 01.11.2017 in the 2nd respondent Corporation limit by considering petitioner's representations on 18.12.2017 and 28.12.2017 respectively within the stipulated time by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For R1 & R3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.R.Prabhu Ramachandran

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

¶13

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the death certificate to the petitioner's wife namely Kanimozhi, who died on 01.11.2017.

¶14

2.According to the petitioner, he is permanently residing at Paravai-II Beat, Samayanalloor(P.O), Madurai. The petitioner's wife viz., Kanimozhi suffered with Dengue Fever and hence, she was admitted in the Government Primary Health Centre at Samayanallur. Since his wife's health condition was getting worse, she was advised to take treatment in the Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai and he took his wife in the 108 Ambulance and on the way, his wife died near Maatuthavani bus stand. Subsequently, he took her body to his native place and cremated. Thereafter, he filed an application before the third respondent to register her death. However, the third respondent rejected his application on the ground that his wife died near Maatuthavani bus stand, Madurai and hence, the death should be registered only by the second respondent and not by the third respondent. In this regard, the petitioner sent representations dated 28.12.2017 and 01.12.2017 respectively to the respondents 2 and 3. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner's wife died in the Ambulance on the way to Hospital, he took her body to his native place and cremated there and hence, the third respondent only has jurisdiction to register the petitioner's wife's death and not by the second respondent Corporation.

¶16

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent produced a circular stating that the birth and death should be registered in the place, where the birth and death took place. If the death took place in the Ambulance or any vehicle on the way, it should be registered in the next possible place, where the vehicles have stopped. In the instant case, since the death took place in Madurai, the death should be registered by the second respondent and not by the third respondent.

¶17

5.It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's wife died in the Ambulance on the way to Hospital near Maatuthavani Bus Stand. Even though the petitioner's wife died in the Ambulance near Maatuthavani Bus Stand, he took her body to his native place and cremated. Even as per the circular, the next place, where the vehicle was stopped, was at Paravai and hence, the third respondent alone has jurisdiction.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Also Considering the fact that the petitioner is the permanent resident of the third respondent Town Panchayat, and after his wife's death, her body has been cremated in his native

¶19

¶20

place and the petitioner has also filed the application in time, the third respondent alone is the competent authority to register the death and therefore, this Court directs the third respondent to register the death of the petitioner's wife, after verifying all the relevant certificates for the purpose of registering her death.

¶21

7.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The District Collector,

¶26

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶27

2.The Commissioner,

¶28

Madurai-Corporation, (Death and Birth Registration Section) Madurai.

¶29

3.The Executive Officer, Paravai - Town Panchayat, Madurai District.

¶30

+1cc to M/S.R.PRABU RAMACHANDRAN, Advocate SR.No.46950. +1cc to M/S.D.BALAMURUGA PANDI, Advocate SR.No.46722. +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.46855.

¶31

WP(MD)No.1406 of 2018 06.02.2018

¶32

¶33

MV/SV:MMS/SAR 1/22.02.2018/3P/7C

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Moorthy, S/O.Muniyandi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Moorthy, S/O.Muniyandi v. the District Collector

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

R.Rajasekaran, Vs the Manager

M.Anandhan, Vs the Superintending Engineer

V.Saravanakumar, Vs the Superintending Engineer

S.Rajakumar, Vs the Authorized Officer

K.S.a.Durairaj, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Madurai Mattuthavani Vs the Madurai Corporation