IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.12.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.18187 of 2010 M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 N.Vedantam ... Petitioner vs 1. The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Perungalathur, Chennai 600 063. 2. The Director, Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 359, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent, containing the impugned communication of the 1st respondent, dated 26.05.2010, bearing No.ADM letter No.285 of 2010 and the consequent impugned communication of the second respondent, dated 09.06.2010, bearing R.No.75430/SBHI-I/SI-10, refusing to register the death of the petitioner's late wife, Mrs.Pankajam in the records of the 1st respondent as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, quashing the same and consequently, directing the respondents to issue the death certificate of late Mrs.Pankajam. For Petitioner ... Mr.V.P.Raman For 1st Respondent ... Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, GP O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the communications of the respondents 1 and 2, dated 26.05.2010 and 09.06.2010 respectively, refusing to register the death of his wife, Mrs.Pankajam in Chennai, as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently, sought for a direction to the respondents to issue the death certificate of late Mrs.Pankajam. 2. According to the petitioners that on 02.05.2010, his wife, after visiting her first daughter's house at New Delhi, took a train bearing No.2391, from New Delhi to Patna to see her second daughter's at Patna. On 03.05.2010, while in transit, she suddenly passed away in the train, due to heart attack. Thereafter, her body was taken to the nearest Kanpur Railway Station, where the Doctor and Station Master, confirmed her death. On receiving this information, the petitioner's relatives in Lucknow immediately rushed to Kanpur Railway Station. On the same day, the Anatomical Society, Lucknow intimated to them that the petitioner's wife's body had been embalmed and was fit for transportation. Thereafter, it was transported to the residence in Chennai and after performing the last rites, her body was cremated within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Perungalathur, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, requesting him to issue death certificate for her death, after duly registering her demise in the records, as per the provisions of the abovesaid Act. In response to the above, the first respondent, by letter, dated 26.05.2010, informed the petitioner that as the death had not taken place within his jurisdiction, the same cannot be registered and as per the provisions of the Act, the Registrar can only record deaths that take place within his jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner requested his Nephew, Mr.Narayana Prasad, to send a representation on his behalf and vide letter, dated 01.06.2010 and the same was sent to the Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, the second respondent, explaining the facts, as to how the death had occurred. Along with the representation, judgments of Gauhati High Court in Kanai Mallick v. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2006 Indlaw Guw 68 and Kerala High Court in Tessy P. Das v. Paippadu Grama Panchayat reported in 2007 Indlaw Ker 1921 respectively. The second respondent has sent a reply, dated 09.06.2010, stating that as per Section 7(2) of the said Act, though the body was cremated within the jurisdiction of the respondents, the death ought to have been registered only in Kanpur, where it took place. Being aggrieved by the communications of the respondents stated supra, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the relief, as stated supra. 3. Referring to the statutory provisions of Sections 7 to 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plain reading of the first limb of Section 7(2) of the Act would itself make it clear that the respondents shall enter in the register all information given to him under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act. According to him, the second limb of Section 7(2) of the Act speaks not only the details of birth and death furnished to them, but also to take steps to register the particulars required. He therefore submitted that when the first respondent is statutorily bound to record the information regarding the birth, refusal of the same amounts to failure in discharging his statutory duties, which provides even punishment as per Section 23 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have misinterpreted Section 7(2) of the Act to mean that the Registrar is liable to register the births and deaths, occurring only within his territorial jurisdiction and failed to consider that for the purpose of registration under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, the question of the concerned event occuring within the territorial jurisdiction of the Registrar is immaterial. According to him, the words "and shall also" used in Section 7(2) of the act, has to be read disjunctive and not conjunctive, as interpreted by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have failed to appreciate that the Central Act is a beneficial legislation and has been enacted for proper maintenance of records of births and deaths and merely because, the death occurred during transit from New Delhi to Kanpur, the petitioner cannot be driven to a place, where, she had heart attack before death. According to him, nobody knows at which place during transit she died. In this context, he submitted that the petitioner has relied on decisions in Kanai Mallick v. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2006 Indlaw Guw 68 and Tessy P. Das v. Paippadu Grama Panchayat reported in 2007 Indlaw Ker 1921, where Courts have interpreted Section 7(2) of the Act to mean that the information furnished to the Registrar regarding the death of persons should be entered in the Registers. 6. The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Perungalathur, Chennai, first respondent, has filed a detailed counter affidavit and on the basis of the same, Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, opposed the maintainability of the Writ Petition as misconceived. Going by the averments made in the affidavit filed in respect of the Writ Petition, he submitted that if the petitioner's wife died during transit, in terms of procedure set out in the Act, the Railway Guard has to give necessary report to the Station Master in charge of the Station, where the train first halts. According to him, if the Railway Guard would have given information, the death of the petitioner's wife would have been registered. Therefore, the Railways, represented by its General Manager, is the proper and necessary party to the Writ Petition. 7. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that this Court no jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Petition, as the cause of action is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. He further submitted that the wife of the petitioner died in a moving train between New Delhi and Kanpur. It is not known how the body was brought to Chennai, without inquest and proper medical certificate. The above facts only leads to suspicion about the death. 8. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.659, Health and Family Planning Department, dated 13.07.1977, appointing the Director, Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, second respondent as Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Tamil Nadu, for implementing the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed and Orders made thereunder. He also submitted that as per the abovesaid Government Order, for the purpose of registration of Births and Deaths, under Section 5 of the said Act, the Government have divided the local area of State of Tamil Nadu as follows: "(1) Corporations and Municipalities are divided into Registration divisions with demarked jurisdictions (Wards). (2) Village Panchayats/Town Panchayats/Townships/Cantonments are "Single Registration Unit"." 9. Learned Counsel for the First Respondent further submitted that for the purpose of carrying out registration of Births and Deaths work, each unit/Division, a person is appointed and designated as Birth and Death Registrar, by Government under Section 7(1) of the said Act. He has to discharge his duties, as Births and Deaths Registrar, that takes place within his jurisdiction, as per the said Act and the Rules framed and Orders issued thereunder from time to time, under Sections 7(2); 3(3) and 4(4) of the Act. 10. Referring to Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000 and the explanation provided thereunder, learned counsel further submitted that as the death had occurred in the Railway carriage, the Officer, who conducted the inquest, ought to have given the information under sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, at the place of first halt and consequently, it cannot be said that the respondents, who are empowered to discharge the duties of registering the births and deaths, have failed to act in terms of statute. 11. In sum and substance, he submitted that as the death had not occurred within the jurisdiction of the first respondent, the same cannot be registered. According to him, as per Rule 6 of the Rules, read with Section 8(1)(f) of the Act, it is the duty of the Railway Guard in train bearing No.2391, from New Delhi to Patna, to give information of the death of the petitioner's wife, to the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kanpur. For the abovesaid reasons, he submitted that provisions have been properly interpreted by the respondents and therefore, there is no manifest illegality in the impugned communications, warranting interference. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is necessary to have cursory look at the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000. Central Act 18 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, has been enacted to provide for the regulation of registration of births and deaths and for matters connected therewith. 13. Section 4 of the Act deals with the appointment of Chief Registrar and such other officers for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act, rules framed thereunder and the orders issued from time to time: "The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Chief Registrar for the State. (2) The State Government may also appoint such other officers with such designations as it thinks fit for the purpose of discharging, under the superintendence and direction of the Chief Registrar, such of his functions as he may, from time to time, authorize them to discharge. (3) The Chief Registrar shall be the chief executive authority in the State for carrying into execution the provisions of this Act and the rules and orders made thereunder subject to the directions, if any, given by the State Government. (4) The Chief Registrar shall take steps by the issue of suitable instructions or otherwise, to co- ordinate, unify and supervise the work of registration in the State for securing an efficient system of registration and shall prepare and submit to the State Government, in such manner and at such intervals as may be prescribed, a report on the working of this Act in the State alongwith the statistical report referred to in sub-section (2) of section 19." 14. Section 5 deals with Registration Division. Section 6 speaks about the appointment of District Registrar by the Government. As per Section 7(1) and (2) of the Act, "(1) The State Government may appoint a Registrar for each local area comprising the area within the jurisdiction of a municipality, panchayat or other local authority or any other area or a combination of any two or more of them: Provided that the State Government may appoint in the case of a municipality, Panchayat or other local authority, any officer or other employee thereof as a Registrar. (2) Every Registrar shall, without fee or reward, enter in the register maintained for the purpose all information given to him under section 8 or section 9 and shall also take steps to inform himself carefully of every birth and of every death which takes place in his jurisdiction and to ascertain and register the particulars required to be registered." 15. Chapter 3 of the Act deals with the registration of births and deaths. Section 8 speaks about the duty of the persons required to register births and deaths and it reads as follows: "(1) It shall be the duty of the persons specified below 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,-- (a) in respect of births and deaths in a house, whether residential or nonresidential, not being any place referred to in clauses (b) to (e), the head of the house or, in case more than one household live in the house, the head of the household, the head being the person, who is so recognized by the house or the household, and if he is not present in the house at any time during the period within which the birth or death has to be reported, the nearest relative of the head present in the house, and in the absence of any such person, the oldest adult male person present therein during the said period; (b) in respect of births and deaths in a hospital, health center, maternity or nursing home or other like institution, the medical officer in charge or any person authorized by him in this behalf; (c) in respect of births and deaths in a jail, the jailor in charge ; (d) in respect of births and deaths in a choultry, chattram, hostel, dharmasala, boarding house, lodging house, tavern, barrack, toddy shop or place of public resort, the person in charge thereof ; (e) in respect of any new-born child or dead body found deserted in a public place, the headman or other corresponding officer of the village in the case of a village and officer in charge of the local police station elsewhere : Provided that any person who finds such child or dead body, or in whose charge such child or dead body may be placed, shall notify such fact to the headman or officer aforesaid ; (f) in any other place, such person as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government, having regard to the conditions obtaining in a registration division, may be 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 sub-section (1) instead of the persons specified in that clause." 16. As the death, in the instant case, is reported to have occurred in a moving train, it is necessary to extract Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, which reads as follows: "6) Birth or Death in a vehicle: (1) In respect of a birth or death in a moving vehicle, the person in- charge of the vehicle shall give or cause to be given the information under subsection 8 at the first place of halt. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule, the term Vehicle means conveyance of any kind used on land, air or water and includes an aircraft, boat, ship, railway carriage, motor-car, motor  cycle, cart, tonga and rickshaw. (2) In the case of deaths ( not falling under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 8) in which an inquest is held, the officer who conducts the inquest shall give or cause to be given the information under sub-section (1) of section 8." 17. Rule 7 of the said Rules deals with notification and form of Certificate under section 10 and it reads as follows: " (1) The certificate as to the cause of death required under sub-section (3) of section 10 shall be issued in Form No.5 or 5-A and the Registrar shall, after making necessary entries in the Register of Births and deaths, forward all such certificates to the Chief Registrar or the Officer specified by him in this behalf by the 10th of the month immediately following the month to which the certificate relates. (2) Any person who performs the funeral ceremonies of a person dying in a local area within the jurisdiction of a municipality, panchayat or other local authority or any other area, shall whenever required furnish to the Registrar such information as he possesses regarding the particulars required for registration" 18. Section 20 of the Act deals with Special provision as to registration of births and deaths of citizens outside India and it reads as follows: "(1) The Registrar General shall, subject to such rules as may be made by the Central Government in this behalf, cause to be registered information as to births and deaths of citizens of India outside India received by him under the rules relating to the registration of such citizens at Indian Consulates made underthe Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955), and every such registration shall also be deemed to have been duly made under this Act. (2) In the case of any child born outside India in respect of whom information has not been received as provided in subsection (1), if the parents of the child returns to India with a view to settling therein, they may, at any time within sixty days from the date of the arrival of the child in India, get the birth of the child registered under this Act in the same manner as if the child was born in India and the provisions of section 13 shall apply to the birth of such child after the expiry of the period of sixty days aforesaid. 19. Section 21 of the Act empowers the Registrar to obtain information regarding birth or death and it states that the Registrar may either orally or in writing require any person to furnish any information within his knowledge in connection with a birth or death in the locality within which such person resides and that person shall be bound to comply with such requisition. Section 23 deals with penalty. As per Rule 9(2) of the Rules, any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence, shall in the case of the local authorities specified in column (1) of the Table given in the Rules, be registered only with the written permission of the officers specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof, on payment of a late fee of rupees five. 20. Though the respondents have opposed the maintainabilty of the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, contending that as the cause of action for the present writ petition, has arisen beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, at Paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, they have categorically admitted that the petitioner's wife, a native of Perungalathur, Chennai, died between New Delhi and Kanpur, while she was travelling in Train No.2391, New Delhi-Patna Express. They have also admitted that the body was handedover to the Railway Guard, Kanpur Railway Station and embalmed by Anatomical Society, Department of Anatomy CSM Medical University, Lucknow and therefore, brought to Perungalathur Town Panchayat area. The relevant paragraph from the counter affidavit is extracted: "It is submitted that the petitioner's wife is a native of Perungalathur, Chennai-600 063 and while she was travelling in Train No.2391  New Delhi  Patna Express, died in between New Delhi  Kanpur on 30.05.2010. The body was dropped at Kanpur Railway Station and embalmed by Anatomical Society, Department of Anatomy CSM Medical University, Lucknow. The dead body of Tmt.Pankajam was brought to Perungalathur Town Panchayat area." 21. Though a suspicion has been raised by the respondents, as to how the body was brought to Chennai, without inquest and proper medical certificate, perusal of the materials on record shows that Doctor, Dr.A.KSrivastava, President, Anatomical Society, C.S.M.Medical University, Lucknow, has issued a certificate in reference No.AS/25/2010, dated 03.05.2010, certifying that the dead body of Late Pankajam, W/o. N.Vedantam (writ petitioner), resident of 2/8, T.V.K. Street, Perungalathur, P.S.Perungalathur, Kancheepuram District, was embalmed in the department on 03.05.2010 and that he has also certified that the dead body was fit for transportation. It is to be noted that under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, there is no provision for conducting any enquiry as to the nature or cause of death. Whether the death is natural or otherwise, is not the criteria for registration under the Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the objections of the respondents, raising suspicion over the cause of death, is irrelevant. 22. By letter, dated 26.05.2010, the Executive Officer, Perungalathur Town Panchayt has returned the documents to the petitioner, instructing him to register the death in the place, in which, it has occurred. In response to the petitioner's counsel letter, dated 01.06.2010, the Director of Public Heath, Preventive Medicine, Chennai, second respondent, in his impugned communication, dated 09.06.2010, has informed the petitioner that as per the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act, the event of birth and death can be registered only at the place of occurrence, though the dead body was cremated here. According to him, when the death had occurred at Kanpur, it can be registered only at the place of occurrence. By the abovesaid communication, he has suggested that the petitioner may have to approach the Birth and Death Register, Kanpur for the same. 23. As stated supra, the respondents have categorically admitted that the body has been cremated within the territorial jurisdiction of the first respondent. At this juncture, it should be noted that unless it is embalmed, found fit for transportation and without getting permission from the competent authority, transportation would not have been possible. The attested copy of the report reads that the Head Bearer, Railway Station, Kanpur, has reported the death at 22.30 Hrs., on 02.05.2010 and the said fact has also been intimated to the Police Station. The report further reads that at 7.00 P.M., the body was handedover for medical examination and thereafter, the relatives had arrived. The report states that the cause of action for the death was due to sudden massive heart attack. No external marks have been found on the dead body. 24. Nevertheless, as stated supra, the cause of death is not relevant for the purpose of registration of death under the provisions of the Act, but the information furnished in the typed set of papers, can be relied on, to corroborate the fact that the petitioner's wife died during the transit. Now, this Court deems it fit to consider the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 25. In Kanai Mallick v. State of Tripura reported in AIR 2007 Gau 57, the deceased Nityananda Mallik was serving as a Constable under the Tripura Government and was a permanent resident of Singhamura village of Hapania Panchayat under Dukli Block of West Tripura district. Prior to the death, his name was registered in the Panchayat ordinary residents' register, which was maintained under the authority of the second respondent therein. While he was undergoing treatment at BINR Hospital, Kolkata, he died on 03.03.2006, due to cardio respiratory failure. Accordingly, the Medical Officer of the said hospital issued a death certificate, dated 3-3-2006,