Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 836 (MAD)

N. Nainar v. State of Tamil Nadu

2016-03-01

A.SELVAM

body2016
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records from the second respondent in respect of the order communicated by the third respondent in proceedings No. A1339/2000 dated 28.07.2000 and quash the same. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has got birth on 15.07.1956 and their parents have got married on 11.07.1951. But the date of birth of the petitioner has been erroneously given as 10.01.1951. The petitioner has been acting as Assistant Public Prosecutor. Under the said circumstances he has given an application to the third respondent to alter his date of birth. The third respondent without considering the contention put-forth on the side of the petitioner and also documents submitted by him, has erroneously rejected the representation of the petitioner. Further the date of birth of the petitioner has been registered by virtue of Court Order. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein. 3. On the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition and in order to encrust the same he raised the following points:- (i) The parents of the petitioner have got married on 11.07.1951. (ii) By virtue of the order passed by a competent Court, the date of birth of the petitioner has been registered as 15.07.1956. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has contended that the third respondent has marshalled reasons for not accepting the contention raised on the side of the petitioner and under the said circumstances the order passed by the third respondent communicated to the second respondent does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The short point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the contention put-forth on the side of the petitioner with regard to alteration of his date of birth can be accepted? 7. It is an admitted fact that in all the records date of birth of the petitioner is noted down as 10.01.1951. Now the petitioner wants to alter his date of birth as 15.07.1956. 8. 7. It is an admitted fact that in all the records date of birth of the petitioner is noted down as 10.01.1951. Now the petitioner wants to alter his date of birth as 15.07.1956. 8. The entire contentions put-forth on the side of the petitioner are based upon two aspects namely, registration of his date of birth by virtue of an order passed by a competent Court and the invitation of alleged marriage of his parents. 9. It is seen from the records that by virtue of an order passed by a competent Court, the date of birth has been registered by a competent authority as 15.07.1956. The order of concerned Magistrate is nothing, but a direction given to the Registrar of Birth and Death and the same is not a conclusive proof. Further on the side of the petitioner, an invitation has been filed for the purpose of showing that the marriage of the parents of the petitioner has been performed on 11.07.1951 and that itself is sufficient for coming to a conclusion that their marriage has been performed on such date without further proof. 10. In fact this Court has perused the entire reasons assigned by the third respondent for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The first and foremost reason is that the petitioner has not established the alleged fact that he is the first child of his parents and further the second reason is that if the date of birth quoted by the petitioner is accepted, he would have admitted in first standard at the age of two. Therefore it is needless to say that on the side of the petitioner acceptable and trustworthy evidence is not available for the purpose of showing that the petitioner has got birth on 15.07.1956 and further after lapse of so many years, the petitioner has come forward with the present claim. Therefore viewing from any angle, this Court has not found any reason so as to meddle in the order passed by the third respondent and sent to the second respondent and altogether the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed without costs.