JESSY THOMAS AND OTHERS Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition (Civil)are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri. Jose J. Matheikel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to R4 (Grama Panchayat) will stand dispensed with.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was born on 21.8.1962 and her birth was not so registered either in accordance with the provisions contained in the Travancore Cochin Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953( which was invoked at the time of her birth) or under the provisions of the subsequent Central enactment, viz., Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. In view of the provisions contained in Section 13(3)of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, belated registration of her birth as per the above said 1969 Act could have been effected only after securing an order of the competent Magistrate of the First Class or Presidency Magistrate, after verifying the correctness of the birth on payment of prescribed fee. That the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the empowered Sub Divisional Magistrate, has been notified as per the provisions of the relevant Government Orders/notifications to issue orders as envisaged in Section 13(3). Thereupon, as the parents of the 1st petitioner are no longer alive, the 2nd petitioner had preferred an application in October 2016 before the Registrar of 4th respondent Panchayat for belated registration of her birth for issuance of birth certificate in that regard. Ext.P1 is the receipt dated 28.10.2016 evidencing the submission of her application before the 4th respondent. The said application was duly forwarded by the 4th respondent to the 1st respondent Sub Divisional Magistrate for orders under Section 13(3) of the Act. It appears that the 1st respondent had authorized the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry regarding the factual details in connection with the 1st petitioner's birth. Thereupon the 2nd respondent Tahsildar had issued Ext.P2 notice dated 3.11.2017, whereby the 2nd petitioner was called upon to produce the necessary records like the details regarding the identification of the 1st petitioner, the dates of birth of the other siblings of the 1st petitioner and non-availability certificate from the local authorities concerned etc. The petitioners had submitted requisite documents as per Exts.P3 to P12. Thereafter, Ext.P13 notice dated 21.12.2017 has been issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the 2nd petitioner for a hearing in the matter. The 2nd respondent after hearing the 2nd petitioner had submitted report dated 24.7.2018, about which a reference has been made in Ext.P17. Thereafter the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P17 notice dated 3.8.2018 calling upon the 2nd petitioner, whereby the 2nd petitioner was directed to attend a personal hearing before the 1st respondent and that the two neighbours of the petitioners mentioned therein as well as all the other siblings of the 1st petitioner should also be present at the time of personal hearing. The said personal hearing was scheduled to be held on 16.8.2018 as per Ext.P17 notice. In view of the flood that had occurred in the State, the petitioners were extremely difficult to attend the personal hearing and moreover, it has also revealed that the office of the 1st respondent was also not functioning on that day due to extreme flood and landslides which had occurred in the State. Thereafter, no further action is forthcoming from the 1st respondent to conclude the process referred to in Ext.P17.