Disposed

T.Baby v. Zonal Welfare Officer

Madras HC3 Jan 2020WP/6288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought a writ of mandamus to amend a death certificate to list the petitioner as the deceased's wife. The Court quashed conflicting death certificates, holding that the marital status dispute must be decided by a competent Civil Court before issuing a corrected certificate.

What did the court decide?

Both conflicting death certificates (D5063986401/2018 and D5169384465/2019) were quashed and set aside. The Corporation of Chennai was directed to await the Civil Court's judgment before issuing a cor

T.Baby Vs Zonal Welfare Officer — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 03.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.6288 of 2019

¶6

T.Baby ... Petitioner

¶7

..Vs.. 1. The Zonal Welfare Officer, Zone-V, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 021. 2. Kalaiselvi 3. The Dean/Superintendent, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai. (R3 impleaded as per order dated 26.09.2019 in WMP NO.27111 of 2019 in WP No.6288 of 2019) ...Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to amend the Death Certificate of the petitioner's husband Late.S.Thirunavukarasu registered with the 1^st respondent vide Registration No.2018/05/059/001503/0 by mentioning the petitioner name “T.Baby” as his wife and to incorporate his residential address as No.142/723, Trunk Road, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600056.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sridhar For Respondents : Mr.Anantha Ragavan (for R1) Standing Counsel Mr.K.Balaji (for R2) Mr.R.Govindasamy, (for R3) Special Government Pleader

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

It is seen that the husband of the petitioner namely S.Thirunavukkarasu, died on 29.01.2018 at Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai. Originally, the Death Certificate was issued to him in S.No.D5063986401/2018. It is stated that the petitioner herein namely Baby was his wife. Subsequently, another death certificate was issued by the Corporation of Chennai in S.No.D5169384465/2019 wherein the name of the wife was given as T.Kalaiselvi. This gave necessity to file the present writ petition by T.Baby/ the petitioner herein claiming that the issuance of the 2^nd death certificate by the respondent/ Corporation of Chennai is not proper.

¶13

The learned counsel who appears for the 1^st respondent namely the Zonal Welfare Officer, Zone-V, Greater Chennai Corporation stated that the 2^nd death Certificate had been issued based on the records given by the hospital. However, in the typed set of papers, in report with respect to the death certificate of Thirunavukarasu, the name of the petitioner is found.

¶14

In view of the rival claims as to who is the actual wife of Thirunavukarasu, the Corporation of Chennai has to get clarification from the competent authorities to decide the same. This Court, under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the same. The status of the petitioner can only be decided by the competent Civil Court.

¶15

Both the parties may be have the advantage of letting evidence and substantiating them with reasons. Consequently, both the death certificates namely D5063986401/2018 and D5169384465/2019 are quashed and set aside by this Court. The Corporation of Chennai may await the Judgment and Decree of the competent Civil Court and thereafter issue the Death Certificate mentioning the name of the wife either as T.Baby (petitioner herein) or as T.Kalaiselvi.

¶16

In view of the said order, the 1^st respondent is to take necessary further action and remove the present death certificate of Thirunavukkarasu from the Website/Port and upload the fresh death certificate after issuing the same as per the orders of this Court.

¶17

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

¶18

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Zonal Welfare Officer,
Zone-V,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Chennai – 600 021.
2. The Dean/Superintendent,
Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,
Chennai.
+1cc to M/s.R.Sreedhar, Advocate Sr.421
+1cc to M/s.R.Balaji, Advocate Sr.360
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.1545
W.P.No.6288 of 2019
cp[co]
srg 18/02/2020

¶21

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

T.Baby v. Zonal Welfare Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Baby v. Zonal Welfare Officer

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

V.Bharani Vs Shashvat Saurabh I.A.S

D.Mathaiyan, Vs The Senior Area Manager

M/s.Aspinwall & Company Ltd. Vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate

Rajamani Gobinath Vs Union of India

Rajamani Gobinath Vs Union of India

K.Mannarsamy Vs The District Election officer