IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13940 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- O.KOCHUMMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, SMITHA BHAVAN, PAZHAYATTUMURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANMTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THE SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR, EAST KALLADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT P LEADER, P.N. SANTHOSH ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13940 of 2008(H) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE BAPTISMAL REGISTER ISSUED BY THE PARISH ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX VALIYAPALLY, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT DT. 28.10.2007. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT DTD. 17.11.2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C. CERTIFICATE FOR THE YEAR MARCH 1999. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.11.2007. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION DATED 3.12.2007. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.1.2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 27.2.2008. / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.13940 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's daughter's birth was not registered by the Registrar of Births and Deaths due to some reason which the petitioner says was beyond the control of the petitioner. For getting the same registered, orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer is to be obtained. The petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer along with documents relating to the birth of the petitioner's daughter. By Ext.P6 order the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the same on the ground that there is discrepancies between the two documents submitted by the petitioner regarding the date of birth. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 and seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to issue necessary orders to the 2nd respondent to register the birth of the petitioner's daughter forthwith in the light of Exhibits P1, P2 and P7; W.P(C)No.13940 of 2008 - 2 - ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6 to the extent it adversely affect the petitioner;” Under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, it is compulsory that every birth and death has to be registered. That being so, the birth of the petitioner's daughter also has to be compulsory registered. Since there was delay on the part of the petitioner in registering the birth of petitioner's daughter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 13(3) of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer cannot refuse to exercise the same on the mere ground that there are discrepancies regarding the date of birth. Since the Revenue Divisional Officer has jurisdiction in the matter, he has to consider the sufficiency of the reasons stated by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon unless he is of opinion that the birth itself has not taken place. If the birth has actually taken place and has not been registered earlier, the Revenue Divisional Officer can decide the date of birth of the petitioner's daughter, for which he has to cause W.P(C)No.13940 of 2008 - 3 - necessary enquiries to be made and ascertain the actual date of birth of the petitioner's daughter. He cannot simply reject the application on the ground that there is discrepancy in the documents produced by the petitioner regarding the date of birth of his daughter. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law and the observations herein, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs