IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19907 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHAMBU NAMBOODIRI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. EASWARAN NAMBOODIRI, EDAKKAT MAN, KUNJATHUR.P.O, MANJESWAR - 671 323. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNHATHOOR VILLAGE, KUNHATHOOR, MANJESWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KASARAGOD. 3. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, MANJESWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SREEDEVI, D/O. SAVITHRI, HANIMANGALATH MANAYIL, MADAYIKONAM, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19907/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S WIFE. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THAT THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS APPOINTED AS A HOME NURSE IN PERFECT NURSING SERVICES W.E.F. 2.8.2010. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY PENSIONER'S BILL IN FORM TR 81 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT REFUSING TO GIVE NON REMARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 7.6.2010. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHROITY, KASARAGOD, LOK ADALATH DT 10.7.2010. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY of THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 16.12.2005 CONFERRING THE POWERS ON VILLAGE OFFICERS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES INCLUDING NO REMARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P10(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 27.4.2007 CONFERRING POWERS ON TAHSILDARS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE RELATING TO NO REMARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 28.1.11 IN WPC NO.28631 OF 2010. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DT 18.3.2010 SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DT 8.3.2010 SWORN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY of THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPODNENT DT 23.2.2011 AS NO.REF.21635/2010. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TALUK OFFICE, KASARGOD. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19907 OF 2011 (K) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13, an order passed by the Tahsildar rejecting a no marriage certificate applied for by the petitioner. 2. The factual findings on the basis of which, such an order has been passed as reflected in Ext.P13 order, reads as under:- “My local enquiry revealed that Sridevi has been cohabiting with Sri.Shambu Namboodiri for the last several years as husband and wife. It is also revealed from local enquiry that the marriage of Sri.Shambu Namboodiri with Sridevi was solemnized at a a temple in Thrissur District in the year 2004. The address of Sridevi entered as “wife of Shambu Namboodiri” in the savings bank A/c No.3010 of the Manjeshwar Service Co-operative Bank is found to be genuine. Having conducted proper enquiry, personal hearing and verification of the records I am convinced that Sri.Shambu Namboodiri is not eligible for getting Non Remarriage Certificate since it has been proved conclusively that the individual has contracted second marriage after the death of his first wife. His contention that Sridevi is his home Nurse is found to be false and aimed at misleading the authorities. In the circumstances the request of Sri.Shambu Namboodiri for the issue of Non Remarriage Certificate is hereby rejected and WPC No. 19907/11 :2 : accordingly, the direction contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.28631/2010D dated 28.1.2011 is complied with”. 3. Evidently therefore, this order says that the local enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar disclosed not only long cohabitation, but also a marriage which was solemnized in a temple. 4. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the factual findings are incorrect, in my view, such adjudication of disputed factual issues cannot be undertaken in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Therefore, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Civil Court. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp