G.L. SAXENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the Petitioner is challenging cancellation of entry at serial No. 359 dated 21 -11 -1983 in the Births and Deaths Register of the Municipal Council Hoshangabad relating to the death of Petitioner's elder brother Dr. B.L. Saxena on 8 -10 -1983 who died in the house of his wife at Gwalior in Hoshangabad.

(2.) DR . B.L. Saxena was the elder brother of the Petitioner and Shri B. M. Lal, a Judge of this High Court, Dr. Rani Saxena was his wife and she was posted as District Health Officer at Hoshangabad at the relevant time and she died on 27 -1 -1987. Dr. Saxena was serving in the Medical and Health Department of the State of M. P. having been appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the year 1953. His wife Dr. Rani Saxena was also Assistant Surgeon. In the year 1962 -63 Dr. Saxena was posted as Malaria Medical Officer at Dhar and his wife was also posted as Assistant Surgeon in the Main Hospital. Dr. Saxena was prosecuted under Section 161, IPC and under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1954. Dr. Saxena was convicted by the Special Judge in Special Case No. 1/68 and 1/69 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. He preferred an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed. He then preferred appeal to the Supreme Court on 18 -5 -1976 and was released on bail. His younger brother Shri B. M. Lal stood as a surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. At that time Shri Las was a practising Advocate. Conviction of Dr. Saxena was maintained but sentence reduced from 3 years' to 18 months. It appears thereafter Dr. Saxena failed to surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar, and proceeding for forfeiture of the surety bond was taken against Shri B. M. Lal (as he then was). According to affidavit filed in Supreme Court by Shri Lal, after the decision of the Supreme Court, Dr. Saxena had left Hoshangabad and stopped visiting his family. At that time, Dr. Rani Saxena was posted at Hoshangabad. According to him, Dr. Saxena died of cardiac arrest in the house of his wife at Hoshangabad where he had come a few days before his death. He was cremated in the Rajghat at Hoshangabad in the banks of Narmada river on 9 -10 -1983. The amout of Rs. 5000/ - was forfeited by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge. In the meanwhile, Shri B. M. Lai was elevated as a Judge of this High Court. Respondent No. 4 Mujeeb Qureshi who is a practising Advocate at Dhar and claims to be a social and political worker, filed an application in the Supreme Court for transfer of the appeal of Shri Lal outside the State of M. P. as he happened to be a Judge of the M. P. High Court. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Seesions Judge, Hyderabad, and the appeal has been allowed and forfeiture of the surety bond set aside. Revision preferred before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was also dismissed. According to the Petitioner, due entry was made about the death of Dr. Saxena in the Rajghat cremation ground register on 9 -10 -1983. On 11 -11 -1983 the Petitioner approached the Chief Municipal Officer, Hoshangabad, for the death certificate of his brother Dr. Saxena and he was asked to furnish information as required under Section 8 (1) (a) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1969; -Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted an affidavit about the death of his brother and then entry was made about the death of Dr. Saxena on 8 -10 -1983 in the Births and Deaths Register on 21 -1 1 -1983. The death certificate was issued to the Petitioner.

(3.) THE Petitioner's case is that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 3 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Petitioner on whose information the entry regarding the death of his brother Dr. Saxena was made, was not given an opportunity to rebut the false charge made by the Respondent No. 4. The Respondent No. 3 had no authority to set aside the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 making the entry regarding the death as Respondent No. 2 was superior to Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 has not been duly appointed as Registrar under the Act and he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. By first amendment, it was further submitted that Dr. Rani Saxena had applied on 28 -9 -1985 for a succession certificate under Section 377 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, before the Court of Civil Judge, Class -I, Hoshangabad, which was registered as M.J.C. No 20/85 and in consequence thereof a c tation was issued in Daink Al k published from Kanti and Bhopal on 30 -9 -1985 inviting objections. On 9 -4 -1986 the Civil Judge granted succession certificate to Dr. Rani Saxena which established beyond doubt that Dr. Saxena died at Hoshangabad on 8 -10 -1983. It is incomprehensible that a married Hindu woman would declare her living husband to be dead and obtain a succession certificate. By subsequent amendment, it was further alleged that the Respondent No. 4 had submitted an application to the President and the Prime Minister of India that the entry regarding death of Dr. Saxena in the Births and Deaths Register has been cancelled by the C.M.O. on 31 -8 -1987, knowing fully well that the operation of the order has been stayed in this petition. This has been deliberately and purposely done at the instance of certain interested politicians to harm the Petitioner and his family members, so it cannot be said that the Respondent No. 4 is contesting the petition in public interest. The petition was admitted on 4 -12 -1987 and the ad -interim stay was confirmed in spite of it being opposed by the Respondents who filed a detailed reply supported by documents.