Allowed

Selvaganesan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC8 Oct 2025WP(MD)/27684/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order refusing late registration of a death due to lack of FIR and Post-mortem report. The court held that when the fact of death is confirmed, further documentary proof is not mandatory and quashed the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned memorandum was quashed. The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to register the death of Alagammal and issue a death certificate to the petitioner.

Selvaganesan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

Selvaganesan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶12

3.The Registrar of Births and Deaths, Thiruvengadam Taluk Office, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in RDOSKL/3210/2024-B1 dated 21.11.2024 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same

¶14

1/13

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶17

and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue Death Certificate for the petitioner's great grandmother under Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000 within time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Ms.S.G.Vidhya for Mr.D.Rajaboopathy

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

2.The real prayer of the writ petitioner is that his aunt's death must

¶23

be registered by the first respondent and thereafter certificate of death should be issued. But the affidavit and petition have been recklessly typed. The affidavit filed by the petitioner reads that his father Gurusamy married his great grandmother and that the said lady passed away and that her death must be registered.

¶24

2/13

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶27

3.The members of the Bar are called upon to double check the contents of what is being filed in the court. They must bestow sufficient care. They ought not to be mechanical or careless. High Courts are courts of record. The papers filed by the litigants are maintained forever. One can overlook petty errors in spelling or grammar. But howlers such as the one on hand are difficult to stomach. Once I was arguing a bail petition before His Lordship Mr.Justice C.Nagappan (As His Lordship Then Was). His Lordship dictated an abrupt order of dismissal. Looking at the shock on my face, the Hon'ble Judge pointed out that in my bail petition, it was typed as “to the satisfaction of the Principle District Judge”. Instead of typing the word as “Principal”, the typist had typed it as “Principle”. Justice Sirpurkar (As His Lordship Then Was) dismissed a contempt petition because my typist had typed the word throughout as “condempt”. While Justice C.Nagappan was kind enough to recall the order and grant relief, Justice Sirpukar was unforgiving.

¶28

4.I have decided to follow the path of Justice C.Nagappan.

¶29

3/13

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶32

5.Gurusamy, the father of the writ petitioner, got married to one Alagammal. She committed suicide on 18.07.1994. Thereafter, Gurusamy married Lakshmi and through the wedlock, the writ petitioner and his sister Amudhaselvi were born. Gurusamy had passed away. The petitioner is in need of death certificate in respect of the said Alagammal. Her death was not originally registered. In this regard, non-availability certificate was also issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. Since it is a case of late registration, it is only the jurisdictional RDO who is competent to register Alagammal's death. The petitioner submitted an application in this regard. The RDO, Sankarankovil declined to register the death of Alagammal and informed the petitioner accordingly vide Memorandum dated 21.11.2024.

¶33

6.Challenging the stand of the first respondent, this writ petition has been filed.

¶34

7.The impugned order makes an interesting reading. The RDO upon enquiry had come to know that Alagammal had died and that it was due to suicide. The reason for non-registration is on account of non-

¶35

4/13

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶38

furnishing of two documents, namely, FIR and Post-mortem Report. The question that calls for consideration is whether the ground for rejection is sustainable.

¶39

8.The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is the relevant statute. Section 13(3) of the Act provides for registration of any death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence. It envisages an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Precedency Magistrate but Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000 talks about Executive Magistrate not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer. There appears to be some discrepancy between the Section and the corresponding Rule. Rule 9(3) owes its current form to G.O (Ms)No.293, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 02.12.2016. G.O (Ms) No.324, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 28.06.2023 issued pursuant to the direction of the Full Bench of this Court in HCP No.3043 of 2014 dated 13.04.2017 contains the relevant guidelines and procedures for ordering late registration of birth and death which have not been registered within one year of occurrence. It reads as follows :

¶40

5/13

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶43

6/13

¶44

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

¶45

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶46

7/13

¶47

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

¶48

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶49

8/13

¶50

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

¶51

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶52

9/13

¶53

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

¶54

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶55

9.I will not fault the RDO. She has gone by the stipulation set out in the aforesaid G.O. The G.O must be read in its entirety. The supporting documents to be submitted by the applicant in addition to the non-availability certificate are contingent on availability. The applicant cannot be expected to submit a document that is not available with him or which cannot be procured by him. That apart an executive instruction cannot be interpreted or construed like a statute. The above G.O expects an applicant to submit copy of the FIR and Post-mortem Report in case of accident, murder or suicide. In the case on hand, Alagammal had died by suicide. When the factum of death has been confirmed, there was no need to look for any further proof of death. The scope of enquiry was to 10/13

¶56

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

¶57

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶58

find out if the person named in the application had died and the date of death. A death certificate cannot be used for establishing the cause of death. Nor would it confer any status on the other persons mentioned in the death certificate. Section 8 of the Act requires the persons referred to in sub-section (1) to intimate the Registrar about the factum of birth/death and the Registrar is obliged to enter in the information in the Registrar. From this one can infer that based on oral information also, death can be registered. It is not necessary that the authority must always insist on documentary proof. If the registering authority is satisfied that death had taken place, he or she ought to register the same and issue death certificate to the applicant. In the instant case, declining the request of the writ petitioner on the ground that FIR and Post-Mortem Certificate was not furnished is unreasonable. As already mentioned, once the authority was satisfied that Alagammal had died, any further documentary proof becomes superfluous. I do not for a moment imply that these documents are irrelevant. I am only holding that these documents need not be insisted upon if the material on record otherwise satisfies the authority that the death had taken place.

¶59

11/13

¶60

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

¶61

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶62

10.In this view of the matter, the impugned memorandum is

¶63

quashed. The first respondent shall register the death of Alagammal and issue death certificate to the writ petitioner. This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶64

08.10.2025

¶65

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA/skm

¶66

¶67

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

¶68

2.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶69

3.The Registrar of Births and Deaths, Thiruvengadam Taluk Office, Tenkasi District.

¶70

12/13

¶71

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

¶72

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶73

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶74

MGA/skm

¶75

W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025

¶76

08.10.2025

¶77

13/13

¶78

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

Selvaganesan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaganesan v. The Revenue Divisional 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

Baskaran K Vs The Commissioner

M/s. Hotel Ramnath Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Baskaran.K Vs The Commissioner

A. Thandapani, Vs the Inspector General

Durairaj Vs Commercial Taxes and Registration Department

V.Sellaperumal, Vs The District Registrar