IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENO MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6637 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.AMBIKA, W/O.LATE MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR, T.C.11/847, KAKKANATT HOUSE, KAKKANATT LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SRI.A.S.ANILKUMAR SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS KERALA (DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE R.D.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (HEALTH OFFICER). 4. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ULLOOR ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER. SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH R4 BY SR. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.6637 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner (mother of a girl named Pooja C. Nair, born on 8.10.1990) is stated as aggrieved of the course and conduct of the 3rd respondent in denying to register the birth of the child, notwithstanding the submission of necessary application with all the relevant documents in support thereof and satisfaction of all the requirements. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, she is the widow of late Mohanachandran Nair, whose marriage took place on 12.9.1979 as borne by Ext.P1 marriage certificate. The child was born on 8.10.1990 and on completion of the S.S.L.C, Ext.P2 certificate was given, where the date of birth is clearly shown as 08.10.1990. On filing the application, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 notice asking the petitioner to furnish some more details which is stated as complied with. As revealed from Ext.P4 report, pursuant to the enquiry made by the 4th respondent, the doubt expressed therein is that, no proof was obtained from the local inhabitants as to the exact W.P (C) No. 6637 of 2011 2 place of birth of the child, whether it was in the residence or in the hospital. It is also stated that the particular house was not in existence as on date, though the parents of the child were stated as living in the aforesaid house earlier. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the materials produced by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has caused the matter to be enquired by the 5th respondent who has submitted Ext.P5 report. According to the 5th respondent, the enquiry made with the local inhabitants could not elicit any positive evidence as to the birth of the daughter, as taken place in the residence. It is in the said circumstance, that Ext.P6 has been issued by the 3rd respondent, as if no birth had taken place and accordingly, denying to register the birth in the relevant records; which in turn is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no power or competence for the 3rd respondent to have the enquiry caused to be conducted W.P (C) No. 6637 of 2011 3 through the Sub Inspector of Police and the same is totally a lieu to the statute; more particularly in view of the mandate under Section 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rules 9 (3) of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Departmental Authorities/State points out that the concerned authority to consider the matter is nobody else, than the R.D.O. 6. In the said circumstances, the matter ought to have been referred to by the 3rd respondent to the R.D.O; instead of rejecting the same as per Ext.P6. This Court finds that Ext.P6 is not correct or sustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to forward the entire materials to the R.D.O, the 2nd respondent, within 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent shall consider the matter and take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, within 'two weeks' thereafter. W.P (C) No. 6637 of 2011 4 Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the concerned respondents for taking further steps. The writ petition is disposed of, as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma