N VEDANTAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the communications of the respondents 1 and 2, dated 26.5.2010 and 9.6.2010 respectively, refusing to register the death of his wife, Ms. Pankajam in Chennai, as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (herein after referred to as the Act) and consequently, sought for a direction to the respondents to issue the death certificate of late Ms. Pankajam.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners that on 2.5.2010, his wife, after visiting her first daughter's house at New Delhi, took a train bearing No. 2391, from New Delhi to Patna to see her second daughter's at Patna. On 3.5.2010, while in transit, she suddenly passed away in the train, due to heart attack. Thereafter, her body was taken to the nearest Kanpur Railway Station, where the Doctor and Station Master, confirmed her death. On receiving this information, the petitioner's relatives in Lucknow immediately rushed to Kanpur Railway Station. On the same day, the Anatomical Society, Lucknow intimated to them that the petitioner's wife's body had been embalmed and was fit for transportation. Thereafter, it was transported to the residence in Chennai and after performing the last rites, her body was cremated within the jurisdiction of the 1 st respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Perungalathur, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, requesting him to issue death certificate for her death, after duly registering her demise in the records, as per the provisions of the abovesaid Act. In response to the above, the first respondent, by letter, dated 26.5.2010, informed the petitioner that as the death had not taken place within his jurisdiction, the same cannot be registered and as per the provisions of the Act, the Registrar can only record deaths that take place within his jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner requested his Nephew, Mr.Narayana Prasad, to send a representation on his behalf and vide letter dated 1.6.2010 and the same was sent to the Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, the second respondent, explaining the facts, as to how the death had occurred. Along with the representation, judgments of Gauhati High Court in Kanai Mallick v. State of Tripura and Others (2006) Indlaw Guw 68 and Kerala High Court in Tessy P. Das v. Paippadu Grama Panchayat (2007) IndlawKer 1921 respectively. The second respondent has sent a reply, dated 9.6,2010, stating that as per Section 7(2) of the said Act, though the body was cremated within the jurisdiction of the respondents, the death ought to have been registered only in Kanpur, where it took place. Being aggrieved by the communications of the respondents stated supra, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief, as stated supra.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have failed to appreciate that the Central Act is a beneficial legislation and has been enacted for proper maintenance of records of births and deaths and merely because, the death occurred during transit from New Delhi to Kanpur, the petitioner cannot be driven to a place, where, she had heart attack before death. According to him, nobody knows at which place during transit she died. In this context, he submitted that the petitioner has relied on decisions in Kanai Mallick v. State of Tripura and (supra) and Tessy P. Das v. Paippadu Grama Panchayat (supra), where Courts have interpreted Section 7(2) of the Act to mean that me information furnished to the Registrar regarding the death of persons should be entered in the Registers.