DARSHNA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the communication letter dated 30.01.2014 (P-10) passed by respondent No. 2 and communication/order dated 17.02.2014 (P-11) passed by respondent No. 4. On 21.01.2013, father of the petitioner had made an application for issuance of birth certificate after registration before the Chief Medical Officer, Hisar i.e. respondent No. 3. His wife Kamla Devi gave birth to a daughter namely Darshna (present petitioner) on 08.12.1999 at Kishangarh. However, the record of birth of petitioner could not be got registered with the concerned authority. Therefore, a prayer was made that the date of birth of petitioner be registered and a certificate in this regard be issued. An affidavit to that effect along with application was also given by the father of the petitioner (P-1 and P-2). On 21.01.2013, an enquiry report was submitted by Dr. Jai Parkash CHC Siswal Distt. Hisar recommending to register the date of birth of petitioner as 08.12.1999. Thereafter, vide letter dated 29.01.2013 Annexure P-4, respondent No. 3 forwarded the application (P-1) and affidavit of the father of the petitioner (P-2) and other documents for appropriate inquiry and order to the SDO (Civil) Hisar i.e. respondent No. 6 (P-4) under Section 10(3) of the Haryana Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2002 (for short "Rules, 2002'). Vide letter dated 15.07.2013 (P-6), respondent No. 2 returned the case papers in original to respondent No. 3 submitting therein that the date of birth of petitioner is 08.12.1990 and that of Sandeep (brother of petitioner) is 24.09.1990. There is a difference of only 10 months in between the birth of petitioner and Sandeep. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 16.07.2013 informed respondent No. 2 that appropriate inquiry with regard to date of birth of Sandeep as furnished by his father (Devi Lal) has been got conducted through respondent No. 4, which is true and correct. Permission was sought to be granted for late registration of birth of the petitioner (P-7). Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 05.11.2013 (P-9) directed respondent No. 3 to make an inquiry into the matter at the State Level and forward a report to this office thereafter. Respondent No. 5 had given its report that a woman can conceive as early as six weeks after delivery if she is not using any contraceptive or breast feeding. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 on 20.12.2013 made a detailed inquiry. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 30.01.2014 directed respondent No. 3 to reject the case in accordance with the proviso to Rule 9(3) of the Rules (P-10). On receipt of above said letter/communication and in compliance to the directions contained therein, respondent No. 4 vide its order/communication dated 17.02.2014 rejected the application (P-1) of the father of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Rule (3) of Rules, 2002. As per the report of respondent No. 5, respondent No. 2 was of the view that the gap should be at least of 101/2-11 months between 2 children.

(2.) On notice a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 to 4 taking a preliminary objection that after getting the application of the father of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 sent the case for grant of permission of delayed registration of petitioner to respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 29.01.2013. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 15.07.2013 (P-6) returned the original file to respondent No. 3 and gave directions for proper inquiry in the matter because there was a difference of only 10 months between the birth of two children i.e. petitioner and her brother Sandeep. Respondent No. 3 re-submitted the case to respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 16.07.2013 (P-7) with the comments that Addl. District Registrar, Birth and Deaths, Hisar has enquired in to the matter. Respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 26.08.2013 to send Additional Registrar Births and Deaths along with the concerned record, applicant Devi Lal and all other witnesses in the Directorate for proper inquiry, but no one attended the office of respondent No. 2 for enquiry. When no one came for enquiry in the Directorate, then Rati Ram, Junior Statistical Nosologist (J.S.N) was sent for enquiry. Rati Ram J.S.N. went to Hisar on 20.12.2013 and recorded the statement of witnesses. One of the witnesses Hoshiar Singh, Numbardar of Village Kishangarh stated that there was a difference of two years between the age of petitioner and her younger brother Sandeep. M.S. PGIMER Rohtak was requested to give opinion on difference between deliveries of two babies as there was a difference of only 9 months and 18 days between the birth of petitioner and her brother Sandeep. The department of Obstetrics & Gynae, PGIMS Rohtak sent the report dated 03.12.2013 to M.S. PGIMS Rohtak (R-1). The relevant extract of the report reads as under.-

(3.) The case of the petitioner was declined as per Rule 9(3) of Rules, 2002.