1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 940 OF 2010 DATTATRYA RAMBHAU KADAM V/S BALASAHEB RAGHUNATH JOGDAND AND ORS ... Shri S.J.Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri V.G.Shelke, AGP for respondents 2 and 3. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH,J. Dated : 11.3.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The question of law raised in this petition by the petitioner is as under :- "Whether un-signed entry in the original register pertaining to date of birth of a child, within the limits of State of Maharashtra, can be accepted to be valid entry or certified copy issued by the Registrar certifying a particular date of birth, based on unsigned original entry from the register concerned is to be accepted ?" 2 4. Factually, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is elected member of Gram Panchayat Pimpalner, Taluka and District Beed. It is further not in dispute that respondent No.1 filed an appeal under Section 41-J(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ("Act of 1959") to the learned Collector, Beed. Said appeal was entertained by the learned Collector. Parties were heard. The learned Collector passed an order on 29.9.2008 and allowed the said appeal and held that the present petitioner, who was respondent in the said proceeding, is disqualified as a Member of the Gram panchayat concerned. The petitioner's status as a Member of Gram Panchayat is cancelled and set aside. The learned Collector recorded a finding that the birth certificate (original) does not bear the signature of the Village Development Officer. For this reason, the learned Collector arrived at a conclusion that the date of birth of the child in question is 29.5.2002. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner date of birth of the fourth child of the petitioner is 29.4.2001 i.e. before the cut off date. 5. On behalf of respondent No.1 reply affidavit is filed. Copy is served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is taken on record and marked Exhibit "X" for identification. Along with this reply affidavit, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has produced zerox copy of the Register (original) and entry pertaining to child Dhananjay. Date of birth is shown as 29.4.2001. Since this document does not bear signature of the Village Development Officer or Registrar, certified copy of this document is not accepted by the authority below. 3 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is manifest that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 ("Act of 1969") holds the field. The power has been conferred upon the Central Government to appoint a date by notification in the Official Gazette for enforcement of the provisions of this Act in the State. Proviso says that different dates may be appointed for different parts of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that so far State of Maharashtra is concerned this Act has been made applicable. He also points out Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra, titled as Maharashtra Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000.(Emphasis supplied). 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my view, few sections from this Act of 1969 are relevant. Expression "Registrar" is defined. As provided under section 7(1) of the Act, power has been conferred upon the State Government to appoint a Registrar for each local area comprising the area within the jurisdiction of municipality, panchayat or other local authority or any other area or a combination of any two or more of them. Section 7(2) of the said Act is material, which is reproduced herein below : "7(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." From sub-section (2) of section 7, it appears that every Registrar is 4 duty bound to enter in the register maintained for the purpose all information given to him under section 8 or section 9. It is further obligatory for the Registrar to 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 require to be registered. (Emphasis supplied). 8. While parting with this section 7, it shall be noticed that the legal duty is cast upon the Registrar to enter into register maintained for the purpose, the information, given to him or received by him under section 8 or section 9. We are concerned with the entry or information pertaining to birth and particulars thereof. The Registrar, therefore, is under obligation to take entry in relation to birth. Section 8 lists the persons required to register births and deaths. In other words, the persons who can give information, manner and methodology is provided under section 8. What is important is the entry to be made or taken in the register maintained under the Act by the Registrar concerned. The Registrar, therefore, is under legal duty to get himself informed and record the information pertaining to birth and death received by him in the register. Obtaining signature of the informant provided under the Act on the register itself is a matter of procedure to be followed by the Registrar. Prime importance has been given to legal duty cast upon the Registrar. It is the Registrar, who has to record the information pertaining to birth and death in the register maintained by him which is in his custody. His status is of a public servant, which is apparent from the provisions of the Act. It then follows, whatever information is reduced into writing and/or entered into the original register maintained by 5 the Registrar has to be signed by the person entering such information and signed by him. If such procedure is complied with as provided under the Act, the information recorded in the register concerned can be said to be a valid entry and certified copies of such entry can be issued by the authority competent under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, if it happens or if such register or un-signed entry by the Registrar is presented or made available to the authority or the Court concerned, such un-signed document, in my view, cannot be said to be valid entry, pertaining to birth of the child in question. Unless original entry is lawfully entered into, brought in existence in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1969, there is no question of issuing certified copy by the public servant concerned. 9. In this view of the matter, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the certified copy of unsigned document, page No.11, issued by the Village Development officer, ought to have been accepted cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of the Act of 1969. In the case on hand, indisputably, original entry of the birth does not bear signature of the Village Development Officer concerned. In my view, authorities below have justifiably refused to accept the unsigned document or entry made in the un-signed document. This was the only point raised in this writ petition. In my view, petition is devoid of any substance and needs to be dismissed. 10. So far document is concerned, expression "document" is provided and/or defined under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. "Document" means, " any matter expressed or described upon any substance 6 by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter." If this definition is taken into account, page No.33, placed on record, on behalf of respondent No.1 cannot be said to be a document in the eye of law. Thus, invalid piece of paper, which cannot be said to be a document, page No.33 in the present case, justifiably has been refused to be accepted and acted upon as a valid entry by the authorities below. 11. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) ... akl