ABU Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who was born on 2. 8. 1960 made an application to the 1st respondent for permission to register his birth. The application was rejected under Ext. P1 order dated 28. 11. 1991 quoting a decision of this Court, usman v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (1987 (2) KLT 1028 ). The petitioner challenges the above order in this Original Petition. When the matter came up for hearing before one among us the correctness of the Bench decision referred above was doubted and the petition was referred for consideration of a Division bench. By order dated 12. 2. 1997 the Division Bench referred the matter for being considered by a Full Bench. Thus the petition is coming up for hearing before the Full Bench.

(2.) AS mentioned earlier, the petitioner was born on 2. 8. 1960. It is alleged in the Original Petition that for 18 years he was under treatment in Medical College, thiruvananthapuram and during this period he could move only his head. His disability is certified as 60%. Since the petitioner was desirous of writing s. S. L. C. Examination and since he was over aged, he required a birth certificate. It was for the above purpose he made an application, which was rejected under Ext. P1 The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act 18 of 1969), a Central enactment, came into force in Kerala with effect from 1. 4. 1970. Before coming into force of the above enactment, Travancore-Cochin registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1953 was governing that part of the state which was under the former Travancore , Cochin State. AS far as the former Malabar area is concerned, it was the Births, Deaths and Marriages registration Act, 1886 (6 of 1886) that was applicable. A reference to the object and reasons of the Bill relating to Act 18 of 1969 would show that the enactment was brought for unifying similar legislations in ASsam, Madras, Kerala and West Bengal and the provisions for registration of births and deaths contained in the Municipal Act, Panchayat Act, Chowkidar Manual or Land Revenue manual by way of executive orders or bye-laws in other States. The Government thought that in order to develop a sound and unified system of registration in the Country, Central Legislation is necessary on the subject. The data that could be collected by accurate countrywide registration would be useful for national planning, organising public health and medical activities and developing family planning programmes, etc.

(3.) WE therefore quash Ext. P1 and direct the 1st respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for registration of his birth on merits by exercising his jurisdiction under s. 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and also after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to comply with all the formalities required for such an application. Orders shall be issued by the 1st respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition stands allowed as above. . .