Allowed

Usharai Chandrasekaran v. the Commissioner

Madras HC19 Jul 2024WP/19251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting her claim for a Non-Availability of Birth Certificate. The High Court held that such a document does not mandate enquiry proceedings or police reports, quashed the rejection order, and directed issuance within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to issue the Non Availability of birth Certificate to the petitioner within four weeks.

Usharai Chandrasekaran Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No. 19251 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.19251 of 2024

¶7

Usharani Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ribbon Building, Chennai – 600 003

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Prayer: This petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records

¶12

relating to the order passed by the respondent in Po.Su.Thu.Ma.Na.A(Puvi) Na.Ka.No.0012/2023 dated 25.09.2023 quash the same and direct the respondent to issue a Non-Availability of Birth Certificate within a stipulated time and pass orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V. Chandrasekaran

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.A.Arun Babu

¶15

Standing counsel

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P.No. 19251 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

¶21

calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent in Po.Su.Thu.Ma.Na.A(Puvi) Na.Ka.No.0012/2023 dated 25.09.2023 quash the same and direct the respondent to issue Non-Availability of Birth Certificate to the petitioner.

¶22

2.Mr.A.Arun Babu, Standing counsel takes notice for the Respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing for either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

The facts of the case are that the petitioner has made an application to the respondent for non issuance of Non-Availability of Birth Certificate. The respondent in turn has conducted an enquiry and passed an order in Po.Su.Thu.Ma.Na.A(Puvi) Na.Ka.No.0012/2023 dated 25.09.2023 wherein they have rejected the claim made by the petitioner on the ground that the report given by the Police Department

¶24

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No. 19251 of 2024

¶26

was not satisfactory, which has given rise to this petition.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶28

the respondent without taking note of the claim made by the petitioner has passed the impugned order mechanically. He further submitted till date there was no case registered against the petitioner While so, the Police Department has no role with regard to the claim of the petitioner. Hence, prays to allow this petition.

¶29

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that for issuance of the certificate the report submitted by the Police Department is very much essential. As the report was not satisfactory they have rejected the claim made by the petitioner.

¶30

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

¶31

On a perusal of records it is seen that the petitioner has only applied for Non-Availability of Birth Certificate, which does not require

¶32

to follow the procedures and guidelines for issuance of Birth Certificate .

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/6

¶35

W.P.No. 19251 of 2024

¶36

Hence, there is no necessity for the respondent to conduct enquiry and to proceed with the report of the police Department or to adopt any other procedures that are mandatory for issuance of Birth Certificate.

¶37

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the respondent in Po.Su.Thu.Ma.Na.A(Puvi) Na.Ka.No.0012/2023 dated 25.09.2023 is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the the respondent to issue the Non Availability of birth Certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

19.07.2024

¶39

Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Index : Yes/No smn To

¶40

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ribbon Building, Chennai – 600 003

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No. 19251 of 2024

¶44

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

smn

W.P.No.19251 of 2024

19.07.2024

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No. 19251 of 2024

¶50

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Usharai Chandrasekaran v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usharai Chandrasekaran v. the Commissioner

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

K.R.S.Meyvannan Vs the District Collector

D.Daniel Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

K.M.Abdul Rasheed, Vs the Commissioner

Wakf Protection Forum Vs the Principal Secretary

S.Jeyaprakash Vs the Director of Town and Country Planning (Dtcp)

Syed Salaudin, Trustee Vs the Chairman