TESSY P DAS Vs. SECRETARY PAIPPADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner, a widow, in this writ petition appears to be genuine. Her grievance is that the respondent (Secretary of the Paippadu Grama Panchayat) who is registrar of births and deaths has declined under Ext. P4 to register the death of her husband late Jose Das T.V. under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, on the ground that the death occurred outside his jurisdictional limits viz. the area of Paippadu Grama Panchayat. The petitioner submits that her husband Sri. Jose Das died in Madurai in Tamil Nadu, but the dead body was brought over to Paippadu, his village and was buried at the Cemetry of St. Thomas Church, Paippadu, his parish Church. Ext. P3 Certificate issued by the Vicar of the Church is relied on by the petitioner in this regard. Ext. P3 was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent along with an application for issuance of a Death Certificate in respect of Sri. Jose Das. But that application was rejected under Ext. P4 on the reason already stated. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P4 raising various grounds. The relief sought for is a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to register the death of the petitioner's husband Sri. Jose Das. T.V.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, wherein quoting Section 7(2) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, it is contended that the respondent is not competent in terms of that Section to register the death which occurred outside the limits of the Panchayat-the Registration Unit.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of Sri. Liji, J. Vadakedom, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Premchand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat. My attention was drawn by the learned Counsel in their submissions to Section 7(2) and the Section 8(e) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act and other statutory provision.