Allowed

V. Saravanan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC9 Jun 2026WP(MD)/13633/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of an inadvertent error in his father's death certificate to record his mother as the deceased's legally wedded wife instead of a second claimant who raised no objection; the High Court set aside the rejection order and directed the Corporation to reconsider and reissue the certificate upon documentary proof of marriage, within two months.

What the court decided

AI extract

V. Saravanan Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13633 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.13633 of 2026

V.Saravanan

.. Petitioner

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai.

¶11

2.Chellammal

¶12

..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 relating to the rejection order of the respondent dated 25.10.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to reissue the death certificate of the petitioner's deceased father after changing the wife's name as Vijaya by considering his application for change of wife's name on his father's death certificate vide No.013241 dated 15.09.2024 within a time stipulation as fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rengaraju For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinayak Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.N.Thinakaran for R2

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.13633 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner challenges the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request for deletion of the name of the second respondent as the wife of the deceased K.P.R. Vellaiyan and substitution of the name of his mother, namely, Vijaya, in the death certificate came to be rejected.

¶20

2.The petitioner claims to be the son of the deceased K.P.R. Vellaiyan, who passed away on 28.02.2021. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was present in the hospital at the time of the death of the deceased and, owing to an inadvertent error, her name came to be recorded as the wife of the deceased in the death certificate.

¶21

3.The petitioner contends that his mother, Vijaya, is the legally wedded first wife of the deceased K.P.R. Vellaiyan and that her name ought to have been reflected in the death certificate. It is not in dispute that the second respondent, who claims to be the second wife of the deceased, has expressed no objection to the substitution of the name of Vijaya in the death certificate.

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.13633 of 2026

¶25

4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the request of the petitioner can be considered, provided the petitioner furnishes the necessary documents to establish that Vijaya was the legally wedded wife of the deceased.

¶26

5.In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained, particularly when the petitioner seeks correction of an alleged clerical or factual error and the second respondent has no objection to such correction.

¶27

6.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the first respondent is hereby set aside.

¶28

7.The first respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s request and reissue the death certificate of the deceased K.P.R. Vellaiyan by showing the name of Vijaya as the wife of the deceased, subject to the petitioner producing satisfactory documentary evidence establishing that Vijaya was the legally wedded wife of the deceased.

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.13633 of 2026

¶32

8.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of

¶33

two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

09.06.2026

¶35

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn

¶36

4/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.13633 of 2026

¶39

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR , J.

¶40

skn

¶41

WWrit Petition(MD)No.13633 of 2026

¶42

09.06.2026

¶43

5/5

¶44

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

V. Saravanan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V. Saravanan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Rajesh Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Faizul Sharief Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Anna Durai Vs The Superintendent of Engineer

Sri Abirami Agencies Vs Thirumalai Kumar

A.v.Rev Traders Vs The Managing Director

A.v.Rev Traders Vs The Managing Director