IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19810 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAUJATH, RESIDING AT PALACHIYIL HOUSE, KAKKANADU P.O., PALACHUVADU, KOCHI - 682 030. BY ADV. SRI.N.C.SAJITH SRI.K.M.SUBAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KOCHI. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER AND REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATHS, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE SECRETARY, INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN,SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.19810/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH REPORT DATED 15.11.2007 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2009. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NON-AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 10.12.2009. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIION SUBMITTED TO THE CORPORATION COUNCIL DATED 6.3.2010. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.4.2010. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION NUMBER 151 AND RECEIPT NO.129 DATED 15.11.2007. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REGISTRATION OF DEATH DATED 15.11.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.19810 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed mainly to redress the grievance regarding the refusal on the part of the first respondent to issue death certificate of the petitioner's father Sri.K.A.Mohammed. The father of the petitioner was admitted in the 4th respondent's hospital and there he had his last breath on 9.11.2007. On 15.11.2007, the 4th respondent recorded the factum of death of Sri.K.A.Mohammed and duly communicated the same to the first respondent Corporation through online (Hospital Kiosk). Ext.P6 would reveal that the death of the petitioner's father was registered as item No.129 and the registration acknowledgment number of his death is DO280169-0711 151. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent for getting the death certificate of her father. The second respondent issued Ext.P3 non-availability certificate dated 10.12.2009 to the petitioner for producing the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi for registration of her father's death on the ground that the death of her father was not registered within W.P.(C) NO.19810/2010 2 one year. The petitioner had again approached the council of the first respondent specifically referring to the report of the second respondent. As per Ext.P5, the petitioner was intimated that death certificate of her father could be issued only after the death is registered by the R.D.O in accordance with the provisions. The petitioner is relying on Exts.P6 and P7 to contend that through Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, the death of her father was registered and it is a recognised registered system and that the permission of the R.D.O is required only in the case of non- registration of death of persons. The widow of the deceased viz., the petitioner's mother requires death certificate for claiming the widow pension. In fact, it is for that purpose that application for death certificate was submitted before the first respondent. Relying on Exts.P6 and P7, it is contended that the case on hand cannot be treated as a case of non- registration of death whereas evidence on records would reveal that the authorised agent of the first respondent namely the Indira Gandhi Co- operative Hospital had duly intimated and registered the death of the petitioner's father on the date of his death viz., 15.11.2007 through the recognised registration system. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner contends that the insistence for production of certificate showing permission by the R.D.O is illegal and unwarranted. It is the delay in the W.P.(C) NO.19810/2010 3 matter of getting death certificate of the petitioner's father for the aforesaid purpose that constrained the petitioner to file this Writ Petition. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in this writ petition. A perusal of the statement would reveal that the fact that the death of the petitioner's father on 9.11.2007 is not in dispute. According to them, the death was not seen registered in the online register of the Corporation and it was in the said circumstances that Ext.P3 non- availability certificate dated 10.12.2009 was issued to the petitioner. Paragraph 5 of the statement reads thus:- “The allegation of the petitioner in the 6th paragraph of the petition is incorrect. Whatever may be the reason, for registering the death report received by the Corporation one year after the death, ROD's (sic. R.D.O's) order is required as per Sub Section (3) of Section 13 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969.” 3. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the fourth respondent. It is specifically admitted thereunder that the father of the petitioner was admitted in the hospital with I.P.No.5552832 and his death had occurred on 9.11.2007. It is further stated thereunder that on 15.11.2007, the fourth respondent registered the death of the petitioners' father Sri.K.A.Mohammed in the Corporation of Kochi through online (Hospital Kiosk) and the acknowledgment number of the registration of W.P.(C) NO.19810/2010 4 death is 280169-0711. It is also admitted thereunder that Ext.P1 is the report of the death of the petitioner's father and that, going by Ext.P6, the death of the Sri.K.A Mohammed was registered as Serial No.151 and the same was received by the first respondent vide receipt No.129 dated 15.11.2007. It is admitted thereunder that Ext.P7 certificate was issued by the fourth respondent to the petitioner giving the details of the registration of death of Sri.K.A.Mohammed, the father of the petitioner. In short, the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent virtually support the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. In the context of the contentions, it is relevant to note that there is denial of the contention that the fourth respondent is duly authorised to receive the certificates for registration of the death and also for delivering the certificate for and behalf of the first respondent Corporation, by the first respondent. Admittedly, in this case, an amount of Rs.50/- was received for the purpose of registration of the death of the petitioner's father Sri.K.A.Mohammed and to deliver such certificate by the fourth respondent. Exts.P1, P6 and P7 would reveal that on receipt of the requisite fee therefor, they had taken appropriate action for online registration of the death and the registration acknowledgment number of the death of Sri.K.A.Mohammed is 280169-0711 151. In this context, the W.P.(C) NO.19810/2010 5 statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 extracted above assumes relevance. It is evident from the said statement as also the rival contentions that the question of approaching the R.D.O to get the death registered becomes necessary only in case of failure to register the death within one year period. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, as already noticed, is in tune with the contentions raised by the petitioner. Invariably, they would go to show that the factum of the death of the petitioner's father on 9.11.2007 was registered on 15.11.2007. The only contention raised on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that the registration of death of the petitioner's father is not seen in the online register of the Corporation. At the same time, Exts.P1, P6 and P7 as also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent would reveal that online registration of death was effected and the acknowledgment number of registration of death has been given as 280169-00711. May be on account of certain error or the defect occurred in the matter of registration that the death of the petitioner's father is seen included in the online register kept by the corporation. But at the same time, the records kept by the fourth respondent would undoubtedly show that online registration of the death was made. In view of the circumstances obtained in this case, I am of the considered view that the case on hand cannot be W.P.(C) NO.19810/2010 6 treated as a case of non- registration of death. In the interest of justice, a direction to the competent authority is called for. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to issue death certificate of the deceased K.A.Mohammed showing the date of death as 9.11.2007 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.19810/2010 7 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.19810/2010 8