Allowed

V.Malathi v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Jan 2019WP/29292/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, the second wife of a deceased, approached the High Court directing the City Head Officer of the Greater Chennai Corporation to consider her representation dated 24.07.2018 regarding a clerical error in her husband's death certificate where the fourth respondent's name was incor

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2018 and pass suitable orders within six weeks.

V.Malathi Vs The Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.01.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

W.P.No.29292 of 2018
V.Malathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
2.Greater Chennai Corporation,
Zonal Office-10, Ward 141,
No.117, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
NGO Colony, Kodambakkam,
Chennai – 600 026.
3.City Head Officer
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
4.Mrs.Mallika ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 3 rd respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 24.07.2018 and pass suitable orders

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

¶9

under Section 11 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,1969 r/w Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Rathina Asohan

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.Karthikaa Ashok for R1 to R3

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3^rd

¶14

respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2018.

¶15

2.According to the petitioner, she is the legally wedded second

¶16

wife of one G.Veeramani. From the year, 2004 onwards she has been living with him till his death on 20.06.2018. Whereas, earlier the deceased Veeramani married one Mallika, the 4^th respondent herein. Subsequently, the marriage was dissolved by a decree passed in F.C.O.P.No.413 of 2003 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai on 29.12.2003. Thereafter, the deceased Veeramani married the petitioner.

¶17

While issuing the death certificate by the third respondent, the name of the 4^th respondent has been mistakenly mentioned as the wife of the

¶18

deceased Veeramani. Hence, the petitioner submitted her representation

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

before the third respondent to correct the mistake. But, so far the third respondent has not considered the said representation. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶22

3.Considering the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition and

¶23

without going into the merits of the case, the third respondent is
directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2018 and
pass suitable orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4.In view of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
21.01.2019
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
Speaking/Non-speaking order
rrg

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

V.BHARATHIDASAN, J

¶27

rrg

¶28

To
1.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
2.Greater Chennai Corporation,
Zonal Office-10, Ward 141,
No.117, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
NGO Colony, Kodambakkam,
Chennai – 600 026.
3.City Head Officer
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
W.P.No.29292 of 2018

¶29

21.01.2019

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

V.Malathi v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Malathi v. The Commissioner

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

K.Thangaraj Vs The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner

V.Gowthaman Vs The Commissioner

P.N.Chinnathambi Vs The Deputy Registrar of

M.Manivannan Vs The Inspector of Police

M.v.R.Siranjeevi, Vs the Superintendent of Police

T.Rubi Vs The Special Tashildar