IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32813 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BHAVANI PURUSHAN, AGED 71, W/O.C.K.PURUSHAN @ PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O, PONJIKKARA DESOM, MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 504. BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32813 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the wife of one Sri.C.K.Purushan. Petitioner states that some of her acquaintance told her that it was reported in some newspapers that the petitioner's husband expired on 11/4/2009. In this writ petition, petitioner alleges that she made Ext.P1 representation to the 1st respondent seeking an enquiry into the cause of death of her husband and to assist her to obtain his death certificate from the local authority. Thereafter, complaining that there has not been any action on Ext.P1, this writ petition has been filed. 2. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident that this writ petition has been filed purely on the basis of hearsay knowledge of the death of the petitioner's husband. Petitioner has not shown that the 1st respondent has any statutory duty to conduct enquiry into the cause of death or to require the 2nd respondent to issue death certificate to her. There is also no material to indicate that the death of her husband has been registered before the 2nd respondent to require the 2nd respondent WPC No. 32813/10 :2 : to issue the death certificate as sought for by the petitioner. 3. In view of the nature of the allegations, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions from the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent has vide his letter dated 3/11/10, furnished his instructions in the matter. From the instructions thus furnished, it is seen that no case of unidentified dead body was reported to the 3rd respondent during April, 2009. Thus, it is obvious that neither the petitioner is certain about the death nor was the death registered with the 2nd respondent nor has any case of unidentified dead body been reported to the third respondent. In such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the alleged death of Sri.C.K.Purushan and to issue death certificate is misconceived and I am not persuaded to issue any such direction. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp