w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam v/s Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- U. P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32201UP1999SGC024928

Company & Directors' Information:- D B POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109MP2006PLC019008

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40105WB1919PLC003263

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U40101WB2003PLC097340

Company & Directors' Information:- B L A POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102MH2006PTC165430

Company & Directors' Information:- L V S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100TG1996PTC023552

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109AP2005PLC047008

Company & Directors' Information:- S L V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102KA2002PTC030448

Company & Directors' Information:- S. E. POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40106GJ2010PLC091880

Company & Directors' Information:- D C POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40109TG1996PLC025996

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U50101WB1997PLC084060

Company & Directors' Information:- B V POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106DL2011PTC213428

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND H POWER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP1965PTC003067

Company & Directors' Information:- B R POWER LTD [Active] CIN = U40106WB1995PLC073567

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- P R B POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG1995PTC020647

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300AP2012PTC084435

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900DL1995PTC070096

Company & Directors' Information:- M POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908MH2012PTC234343

Company & Directors' Information:- A N S INDIA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2014PTC266873

Company & Directors' Information:- D T POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40300AP2015PTC097226

Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- G S POWER LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2010PLC054033

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER AND POWER PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31300AS1989PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- P D M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40104AS2014PTC011780

Company & Directors' Information:- B & G POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40105PB2010PLC033765

Company & Directors' Information:- S B DRIVE POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29290MH1999PLC120621

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

Company & Directors' Information:- S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19202DL1986PTC026505

Company & Directors' Information:- G M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40105PN2003PTC017857

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31102WB1983PTC036315

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109PY2004PTC001824

Company & Directors' Information:- K P M POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40102KA2008PTC046804

Company & Directors' Information:- POWER-X PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1970PTC005331

Company & Directors' Information:- S K POWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31101KA2006PTC039172

Company & Directors' Information:- R G D POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U41000TG1996PTC023809

Company & Directors' Information:- M M R POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31104DL2008PTC174079

Company & Directors' Information:- S J POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45207HR2012PTC045937

Company & Directors' Information:- MOTHER INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51102TN1946PTC001481

Company & Directors' Information:- T C POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101PB2009PTC033405

Company & Directors' Information:- H. & T. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106MH2016PTC287646

Company & Directors' Information:- S & O POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107MH2010PTC206447

Company & Directors' Information:- V D M-POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262999

Company & Directors' Information:- W N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101JK2013PTC004009

Company & Directors' Information:- G C I POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40107KA2010PTC053656

Company & Directors' Information:- R. C. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40100GJ2009PTC058005

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

Company & Directors' Information:- D V N POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40101TG2007PTC053069

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC161616

    W.P.(C). No. 4207 of 2020 (A)

    Decided On, 30 June 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

    For the Petitioner: C.P. Chandrasekharan (Calicut), Aparna C. Menon, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, M.P. Madhavankutty, SC, R3, Government Pleader, G. Ranjitha, GP.



Judgment Text


1. The petitioner, a citizen of India, presently residing at Illinois, USA has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, Changanassery Municipality to issue certificate of birth, in consonance with Ext.P3 Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued by the Board of Public Examinations, Government of Kerala; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application made by the petitioner, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the date of birth of the petitioner and her twin sister Smt.Binney Joseph is 03.05.1975. The birth of the petitioner and her twin sister was not reported to the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths due to an inadvertent omission on the part of their parents. The petitioner, after marriage, shifted her residence to Illinois, USA where she is residing with her husband Sri Biju Poothanvelil John. The petitioner is pursuing her studies in Nursing and working as an entry level Nurse. She is holding H4 Visa, as a dependant of her husband, who is holding H1-B Visa. The document marked as Ext.P2 is a true copy of her Indian Passport; Ext.P3 is her Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued by the Board of Public Examinations, Government of Kerala; Ext.P4 is her Indian Union Driving Licence issued by the Assistant Licensing Authority, Changanassery; and Ext.P5 is her PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department, Government of India. In Exts.P2 to P5 the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 03.05.1975. The document marked as Ext.P6 is a true copy of the Baptism Certificate issued by the Assistant Vicar of St. Xavier's Forane Church, Thrickodithanam, Changanassery, in which her date of birth is shown as 07.09.1974. According to the petitioner, at the time of Baptism, her date of birth was mistakenly given as 07.09.1974, instead of 03.05.1975.

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner submitted an application before the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths for birth certificate. The petitioner was asked to produce the details of birth from the hospital where she was born. The petitioner approached the Superintendent, General Hospital, Changanassery, who by Ext.P7 communication dated 14.03.2019, informed the petitioner's mother as to non-availability of birth register of the year 1975. The 1st respondent forwarded the file to the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam. Before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's mother submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 02.09.2019, along with Ext.P9 affidavit sworn to before a notary public on 20.06.2019, with a request to issue non-availability certificate. The 3rd respondent called for a report from the 2nd respondent Village Officer, who submitted a report dated 27.07.2019, which was followed by Ext.P10 report dated 07.09.2019, in which the 2nd respondent reported the date of birth of the petitioner as 09.07.1974, based on the Baptism Certificate and the statements given by her neighbours. On receipt of Ext.P10 report, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P11 communication dated 11.11.2019 called for a detailed report from the 2nd respondent, since the date of birth of her brother Sri Binu Joseph is shown as 10.05.1974 in the affidavit sworn by her mother before a notary public. Alleging inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in issuing certificate of birth, in consonance with Ext.P3 Secondary School Leaving Certificate, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. The petitioner would point out that her husband has already applied for Green Card (Permanent Resident Card) and in the next level of processing he has to submit the birth certificates of his dependants.

4. On 14.02.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Changanassery Municipality took notice for the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths and the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 2 and 3.

5. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, pointing out the provisions of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The 1st respondent would point out that for registration of birth the petitioner has to obtain orders from the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate, in view of the provisions under subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Act, read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, contending that, she has approached the 1st respondent with an application for issuance of birth certificate, on account of urgency, since her husband who has already applied for Green Card has to submit the birth certificates of his dependants in the next level of processing of that application. For the very same reason, she has approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction.

7. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and pointing out the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The request made by the petitioner to register her birth with the date of birth shown in Ext.P3 Secondary School Leaving Certificate is pending enquiry and the 2nd respondent Village Officer has already verified the relevant documents in detail and recorded the statement of two neighbours. The date of birth of the petitioner does not tally with the date of birth of her brother Sri Binu Joseph, shown in the affidavit sworn by the petitioner's mother before a notary public. This discrepancy is yet to be clarified by the petitioner by submitting the relevant documents. Other than the said affidavit, the petitioner was unable to produce any document to substantiate the claim to register her birth with the date of birth as shown in Ext.P3 Secondary School Leaving Certificate. The school certificate of the immediate bother/sister of the petitioner is also to be verified, which is yet to be submitted. Further enquiry is in progress and the 3rd respondent is yet to dispose of the case.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Changanassery Municipality representing the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

9. The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the regulation of registration of births and deaths and for matters connected therewith. The said Act came into force in the whole of the State of Kerala, with effect from 01.04.1970. Section 8 of the Act deals with persons required to register births and deaths. As per sub-section (1) of Section 8, it shall be the duty of the persons specified in clauses (a) to (f) to give or cause to be given, either orally or in writing, according to the best of their knowledge and belief, within such time as may be prescribed, information to the Registrar of the several particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 16. As per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, in respect of births and deaths in a hospital, health centre, maternity or nursing home or other like institution, the Medical Officer in charge or any person authorised by him in this behalf shall give information to the Registrar of the several particulars required to be entered in the prescribed form. As per sub-section (2) of Section 8, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government, having regard to the conditions obtaining in a registration division, may by order require that for such period as may be specified in the order, any person specified by the State Government by designation in this behalf, shall give or cause to be given information regarding births and deaths in a house referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1), instead of the persons specified in that clause. Section 9 of the Act deals with special provision regarding births and deaths in plantation. As per Section 12 of the Act, the Registrar shall, as soon as the registration of a birth or death has been completed, give, free of charge, to the person who gives information under Section 8 or Section 9 an extract of the prescribed particulars under his hand from the register relating to such birth or death.

10. Section 13 of the Act deals with delayed registration of births and deaths. As per sub-section (1) of Section 13, any birth of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefor, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. As per subsection (2), any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days, but within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. As per sub-section (3), any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. As per sub-section (4) of Section 13, the provisions of this Section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified therefor and any such birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action.

11. Section 17 of the Act deals with search of births and deaths register. As per sub-section (1) of Section 17, subject to any rules made in this behalf by the State Government, including rules relating to the payment of fees and postal charges, any person may cause a search to be made by the Registrar for any entry in a register of births and deaths; and obtain an extract from such register relating to any birth or death. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), no extract relating to any death, issued to any person, shall disclose, the particulars regarding the cause of death as entered in the register. As per sub-section (2) of Section 17, all extracts given under this Section shall be certified by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the State Government to give such extracts as provided in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates. Section 23 of the Act deals with penalty. As per sub-section (5) of Section 23, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 an offence under this Section shall be tried summarily by a Magistrate.

12. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and in supersession of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970 the Government of Kerala, with the approval of the Central Government, made the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. Rule 5 of the Rules deals with form, etc., for giving information of births and deaths. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, the information required to be given to the Registrar under Section 8 or Section 9, as the case may be, shall be in Form Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the Registration of a birth, death and stillbirth respectively (to be collectively called the reporting forms). Information if given orally, shall be entered by the Registrar in the appropriate reporting forms and the signature/thumb impression of the informant obtained. As per sub-rule (2), the part of the reporting forms containing legal information shall be called the 'Legal Part' and the part containing statistical information shall be called the 'Statistical Part'. As per sub-rule (3), the information referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be given within twenty-one days from the date of birth, death and stillbirth.

13. Rule 9 of the Rules deals with authority for delayed registration and fee payable therefor. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified in Rule 5, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of a late fee of rupees two. As per sub-rule (2), any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only with the written permission of the officer prescribed in this behalf and on payment of a late fee of rupees five. As per sub-rule (3), any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order of a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate and on payment of a late fee of rupees ten.

14. Rule 13 of the Rules deals with fees and postal charges payable under Section 17 of the Act. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 13, the fees payable for a search to be made, an extract or a non-availability certificate to be issued under Section 17, shall be as follows; (a) search for a single entry in the first year for which the search is made – Rs.2/-; (b) for every additional year for which the search is continued – Rs.2/-; (c) for granting extract relating to each birth or death – Rs.5/-; and (d) for granting non-availability certificate of birth or death – Rs.2/-. As per sub-rule (2), any such extract in regard to a birth or death shall be issued by the Registrar or the officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf in Form No.5 or, as the case may be, in Form No.6 and shall be certified in the manner provided for in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per sub-rule (3), if any particular event of birth or death is not found registered the Registrar shall issue a non-availability certificate in Form No.10. As per sub-rule (4), any such extracts or nonavailability certificate may be furnished to the person asking for it or sent to him by post on payment of the postal charges therefore.

15. The State Government issued G.O.No.124/72/ Home dated 02.08.1972 on the allocation of powers under the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Act and the Rules made there under. As per the said order, the jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970 shall be vested with the Executive First Class Magistrate (Revenue Divisional Officers) and that under Section 23 of the Act, shall be allocated to the Judicial Magistrates.

16. Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with construction of references. As per sub-section (4) of Section 3, where, under any law, other than this Code, the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relate to matters (a) which involve the appreciation or shifting of evidence or the formulation of any decision which exposes any person to any punishment or penalty or detention in custody pending investigation, inquiry or trial or would have the effect of sending him for trial before any Court, they shall, subject to the provisions of this Code, be exercisable by a Judicial Magistrate; or (b) which are administrative or executive in nature, such as, the granting of a licence, the suspension or cancellation of a licence, sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from a prosecution, they shall, subject as aforesaid, be exercisable by an Executive Magistrate.

17. Chapter VI of the 'Handbook on Civil Registration in Kerala' published by the Chief Registrar, Kerala contains 'Quarries and Clarifications issued by the Registrar General of India'. On Querry No.48, the Registrar General of India has clarified that, in view of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the functions under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 can be exercised by an Executive Magistrate. On Querry No.56, the Registrar General of India has clarified that, in view of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the power under sub-section (5) of Section 23 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 shall be exercisable by a Judicial Magistrate. Quarry Nos.48 and 56 (at pages 160, 161 and 164) read thus;

“48. Query: After coming into operation of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with effect from 1.4.1974 the Government of West Bengal has requested that the authority to exercise power under sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of West Bangal Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1972 be given to Executive Magistrate. As only a First Class Magistrate or a Presidency Magistrate is specified in sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 the authority can now be exercised only by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate and not by an Executive Magistrate. It is also for advice whether it would require amendment of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, itself or only an amendment in sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the West Bengal Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1972 would serve the purpose of specifying the appropriate Magistrate allowed by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Clarification: Sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 provides that in case of delay of registration of birth or death beyond one year of its occurrence the same shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the corrections of birth or death and on payment of prescribed fee. This function of verifying the corrections may involve the appreciation or sifting of evidence or the formulation of a decision but that decision will not expose to any punishment or penalty or will not have the effect of sending any person for a trial so as to bring this function within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. At the most, it may be said to be quasijudicial function. Under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the function under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the said Act is treated as administrative or executive in nature. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that the functions which are administrative or executive in nature exercisable by a Magistrate under any law other than the Code shall be exercisable by an Executive Magistrate. In view thereof the functions under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 can be exercised by an Executive Magistrate.”

“56. Query: section 23 of Registration of Births and deaths Act, 1969 deals with the penalties. Sub-section (5) of this Section states that an offence under this Section shall be tried summarily by a Magistrate. The point has been raised whether a case in this connection is to be launched in the court of an Executive Magistrate or of a Judicial Magistrate.

Clarification: Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that where the functions exercisable by a Magistrate under any law relate to matters which involve the appreciation, or reading of evidence or the formulation of any decision which expose any person to any punishment or penalty or detention in custody pending investigation or enquiry or trial would have the effect of sending him for trial before any court, they shall be exercisable by a Judicial Magistrate.”

18. In view of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the functions exercisable by a Magistrate of First Class or a Presidency Magistrate under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which is executive in nature, has to be exercised by an Executive Magistrate (Revenue Divisional Officer). Therefore, the contention of the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths that for registration of birth the petitioner has to obtain orders from the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate, in view of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 can only be rejected as untenable.

19. In the instant case, the birth of the petitioner is not registered with the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, as per the statutory mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, within the time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Rules made thereunder. Section 13 of the Act deals with delayed registration of births and deaths. In view of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the said Act, read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules and clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the birth of the petitioner, which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, can be registered only on an order made by the Executive Magistrate (Revenue Divisional Officer) after verifying the correctness of the birth and on payment of the prescribed fee. Similarly, in order to obtain non-availability certificate, the petitioner has to submit a request before the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, invoking the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, after remitting the fee payable under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules.

20. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction.

21. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.

22. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.

23. Admittedly, the birth of the petitioner is not registered with the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. In view of the provisions under subsection (3) of Section 13 of the said Act, the birth of the petitioner, which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, can be registered only on an order made by the Executive Magistrate (Revenue Divisional Officer). In the absence of any such order, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths to issue certificate of birth in consonance with Ext.P3 Secondary School Leaving Certificate. In order to obtain non-availability certificate, the petitioner has to submit a request before the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, invoking the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, read with sub-rule 3 of Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, after

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

remitting the fee payable under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued commanding the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the request made in Ext.P8 representation dated 02.09.2019 to issue non-availability certificate. 24. The petitioner has not chosen to produce before this Court a copy of the application made before the 3rd respondent Executive Magistrate (Revenue Divisional Officer) for registration of birth, invoking the provisions under subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules. As discernible from Ext.P11 communication dated 11.11.2019 and also the statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, an application made by the petitioner for registration of birth is pending consideration of the said respondent. As per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 13, the 3rd respondent has to pass orders on that application after verifying the correctness of the birth and on payment of the prescribed fee. Before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has to produce the non-availability certificate in Form No.10, school certificates of her siblings, etc., so as to enable the 3rd respondent to conduct a proper enquiry. In case the petitioner is yet to obtain non-availability certificate in Form No.10, she has to approach the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, with a proper application, after remitting the fee payable under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules. 25. Considering the fact that an application made by the petitioner for registration of birth is pending consideration of the 3rd respondent Executive Magistrate (Revenue Divisional Officer), as discernible from Ext.P11 communication dated 11.11.2019 and also the statement filed on behalf of the said respondent, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on that application, strictly in accordance with law, after verifying the correctness of the birth of the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner/her authorised representative and also an authorised representative of the 1st respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 26. In case the application made by the petitioner for registration of birth is not in order or the same is not supported by the required documents, the 3rd respondent shall require the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, to cure the defects and/or to produce the required documents. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-10-2020 UETC India Ltd., New Delhi Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-10-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, namely Shree Rajeev Kumar, District Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
08-10-2020 Ravi Agarwal Versus M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, C.D. Kishore High Court of Karnataka
07-10-2020 Nikita Sutar Minor D/o Late Chandra Chetry Sutar @ Chandra Bahadur Sutar, Rep. By Hre Mother/Legal Guardian Smti Manju Devi @ Manju Sutar, Assam Versus The State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
06-10-2020 Small Industries Development Bank of India, Chennai & Others Versus Creation Investments Equitas Holdings LLC A wholly owned subsidiary of Creation Investments Social Ventures Fund II LP, United States of America & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rasipuram & Others Versus Arukkani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet Versus N. Thangavel, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 Sabu Issac Versus Antony Chacko, Working Abroad In USA, Represented by Power of Attorney holder Ansamma P. Thomas High Court of Kerala
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 Abdul Samad, Alappuzha, Represented by his wife & next friend Shyla Versus Nahakhan, Alappuzha, Represented by His Power of Attorney holder Abdul Latheef High Court of Kerala
01-10-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus M. Suresh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 Christopher Joseph O'neill Versus Andrew Bridgman & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
29-09-2020 M/s. VA Tech Wabag Ltd., Through Power of Attorney holder of S. Varadarajan, Director & Chief Growth Officer, Chennai Versus M/s. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
28-09-2020 M/s. Shankar Jewels & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2020 Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Versus Hindustan Construction Company Limited High Court of Delhi
25-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kumbakonam Versus Natarajan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal Versus Shanmugam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Vellore Versus Krishnaveni & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 M/s. S.M. Cement Industries Rep. By One of Its Partners Namely, Manoj Sureka, Assam Versus Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Anna Salai, Versus Selvi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Versus Emili & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
07-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Osmanpura, Aurangabad Versus Chandrakala & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-09-2020 M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Namakkal. Versus Allimuthu @ Sengodan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Joidha Bai Patel & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
25-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Maragatham & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 United Conveyor Corporation (India) Private Limited Versus Pravash Kumar Mukherjee High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Narinder Kour & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
21-08-2020 K.S. Dileep Kumar, Represented by the Power of Attorney holder, brother, K.S. Dipesh Versus Anjana Gopinath & Another High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Chairman-Cum M.D., Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Tripathi & Others Versus T. Rajeswari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, District Raipur & Another Versus Rahi Solanki & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 M/s. Perfectpac Ltd., Haryana Versus United India Insurance Company Limited (Through Its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager/ Authrised Signatory) & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharasthra State, Represented By Its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam Versus Rijawana Jamshed Mulla & Others High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 M/s. Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) Pte Ltd. IC, Rep. by its Agent M/s. Wan Hai Lines (India) Pvt Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus Tionale Pte Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent, P. Barathiraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 M/s. Pioneer Power Ltd, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Therkukattur Village, Ramanathapuram Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-08-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Murugammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
23-07-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Versus M. Amavasai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Rev. Noble Philip Versus Nevin Noble (Minor), Represented by Mother, Marin Josephine @ Tini High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
07-07-2020 The Chairman & Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Rajini & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 Sherif Vincent, Represented by his wife & Power of Attorney holder Reeny Sherif & Another Versus M.S. John & Another High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited Versus Rampal High Court of Delhi
30-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Md. Khayyumkhan & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-06-2020 Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., AP. & Others Versus Kimudu Monu & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Ge Power India Ltd. Versus NHPC Limited High Court of Delhi
25-06-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Amar Singh Raghuwanshi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-06-2020 M/s. Jain Textiles, Ashok Jain Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-06-2020 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Through Its Secretary/Cmd, The Mall Patiala Punjab & Others Versus Vikramjit Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 M/s. Group 5 Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-06-2020 Shankar Saran Versus Chairman & Managing Director Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
08-06-2020 EHVEES, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Dealer, Manjeri, Represented by M. Muhammed Gadhafi, Power of Attorney Holder, Shoukathali Versus The District Collector, Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus N. Prathap & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited & Another Versus M/s. Srigdhaa Beverages Supreme Court of India
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-05-2020 Narayana Nayak, Represented by Special Power of Attorney Holder, S.M. Dhananjaya Versus Range Forest Officer, Hudikeri Branch, Kodagu & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
21-05-2020 The Institute of the Ursuline Franciscan Congregation, Represented by the Power of Attorney Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-05-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune Regional Office, through its Divisional Office & Others Versus Shriniwas Ramayya Kamtam & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 M/s S.M.C Power Generation Ltd, Orissa Versus Dilip Bhai Patel High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-05-2020 G.J. ECO Power Private Limited, having Its Registered Office at Ernakulam, Represented by Its Director, James Adai Versus Kochi Municipal Corporation, Represented by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
08-05-2020 M/s. Bhilwara Energy Ltd. & Another Versus The Chief Secretary (Power) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Govind Gagoria & Another Versus M/s. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Aruppukottai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-05-2020 State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai Versus M/s. PRP Exports, M/s. PRP Granites through its Power Agent/Partner, P. Sureshkumar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Grievances Redressal Officer, M/s. Economic Times Internet Ltd., Haryana & Others Versus M/s. V.V. Minerals Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager & Power Agent, S. Krishnamurthy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-05-2020 Jobin Joseph Versus Uma Thomas & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 M/s. PPS Enviro Power Private Limited (PPSE) Versus M/s. Pantime Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
15-04-2020 United Nurses Association Through Its President Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India