Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1122 (JHR)

Dilmohan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-13

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 11.05.2017, contained in Memo no. 1686 issued by the Registrar, Deoghar Municipal Corporation has been assailed, whereby and whereunder, the death certificate issued about the death of Shiv Narayan Singh has been cancelled. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the death certificate has been issued on his application made on 25.02.2017, as contained under Annexure-1 on the ground that on the date of death i.e. 26.06.2006, the last rite of one late Shiv Narayan Singh was performed on 26.06.2006 and in the said last rites, the petitioner was present and since there is requirement of the death certificate, therefore, the request has been made before the authority of the Municipal Corporation, Deoghar to issue the death certificate basis upon which the death certificate has been issued and therefore, the petitioner has got a substantial right to be heard before cancellation of the death certificate, but having not done so, the order impugned is against the principle of natural justice. 3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned G.A. IV appearing for the Respondent-State has submitted that the death certificate has been issued by the Municipal Corporation, Deoghar and, as such, is the contesting Respondent, however, on the basis of the pleading made by the petitioner in the writ petition, has argued that the question of providing an opportunity is only to such person, who has got accrued right or vested interest causing any prejudice. His further submission is that even accepting that on the application of the petitioner, the death certificate has been issued but the authority considering the importance of the death certificate, so that it may not be misused by any person, has conducted an enquiry and on enquiry, it has been found that no such person in the name of Shiv Narayan Singh was residing in the said locality and therefore, the authority has cancelled the death certificate and rectified the illegality committed. So far as the question of providing an opportunity to the petitioner is concerned, since in the pleading made in the writ petition, he has failed to establish the locus, therefore, any intruder cannot claim any right, unless any prejudice is being caused to such person, but from the entire pleading of the writ petition, nothing has been stated that how the petitioner has been prejudiced due to cancellation of the death certificate. His further submission is that the petitioner even has not stated in the writ petition that how he is related to late Shiv Narayan Singh and that he has got any concern with the dead person and, as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have been prejudiced due to cancellation of the death certificate and therefore, no interference is required in this writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, the fact which is not in dispute in this case is that a person in the name of Shiv Narayan Singh has died on 26.06.2006, alleged to be the resident of Deoghar Police Station and on an application made by the petitioner, who is resident of the District of Banka, requesting therein, to issue death certificate of late Shiv Narayan Singh, since he has witnessed last rites on 26.06.2006, the authority has issued the death certificate in exercise of the power conferred under the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969. It is evident from the provision, as contained in the Act, 1969, as per Section 8, it has been provided that the death certificate is to be issued on the basis of an information given by the person concerned, whose reference has been made in the aforesaid statutory provision, which reads hereunder as :- “8. Persons required to register birth and deaths. Persons required to register birth and deaths. -(1) It shall be the duty of the persons specified below to give or cause to be given either orally or in writing according to the best of their knowledge and belief within such time as may be prescribed information to the Registrar of the several particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 16- (a) In respect of births and deaths in a house whether residential or non-residential not being any place referred to in clauses (b) to (e) the head of the house or, in case more than one household live in the house, the head of household the head being the person who is o recognized by the house or the household and if he is not present in the house at any time during the period within which the birth or death has to be reported the nearest relative of the head present in the house and in the absence of any such person the oldest adult male person present therein during the said period; (b) In respect of births and death in a hospital, health centre, maternity or nursing home or other like institution the medical officer incharge or any person authorized by him in this behalf; (c) In respect of birth and death in a jail the jailor incharge; (d) In respect of births and deaths in a choultry chattram, hostel, dharmsala, boarding house, lodging house, tavern, barrack, toddy shop or place of public resort, the person in charge thereof; (e) In respect of any new-born child or dead body found deserted in a public place, the headman or other corresponding officer of the village in the case of a village and other officer in charge of the local police station elsewhere: Provided that any person who finds such child or dead body, or in whose charge such child or dead body may be placed, shall notify such fact to the headman or officer aforesaid; (f) in any other place, such person as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government, having regard to the conditions obtaining in a registration division, may by order require that for such period as may be specified in the order any person specified by the State Government by designation in this behalf, shall give or cause to be given information regarding births and death in a house referred to in clause (v) of subsection (1) instead of the persons specified in the clause.” 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not related in any way with the late Shiv Narayan Singh, although he claims that he has given information about death of late Shiv Narayan Singh, but the authority without verifying his locus had issued the death certificate on the basis of his application. Subsequent to issuance of the death certificate, on a complaint being made by one Shri Arjun Rai, an enquiry Committee has been constituted by the Additional Municipal Commissioner, who has visited the locality, where the house of late Shiv Narayan Singh said to have situated and the petitioner has also been communicated about the enquiry, who has also put his appearance before the Committee alongwith the relevant documents, but he has failed to satisfy about the place of death of late Shiv Narayan Singh, as also the local people has apprised the said Committee that no such person in the name of late Shiv Narayan Singh is residing in the locality, which has been disclosed by the petitioner as the place of residence of late Shiv Narayan Singh. Further, even from the electoral rolls, the authorities have come to the conscious finding that no person in the name of late Shiv Narayan Singh is residing in the locality. 6. The petitioner has emphatically argued that without issuing any notice to him, the death certificate has been cancelled but from the face of the impugned order, it reflects that the petitioner has provided relevant documents along with the affidavit and therefore, the contention, which has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that opportunity has not been provided to the petitioner, is incorrect. 7. 7. In view of the factual aspect, as narrated in the impugned order and taking into consideration the fact that on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Committee, the decision to cancel the death certificate has been taken, therefore, the same cannot be interfered with by the High Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of the power of writ of Certiorari due to the settled position of law that the writ of Certiorari can only be issued, when there is inherent defect or the order suffers from the violation of the principles of natural justice or the order is contrary to the statutory provision, but no such ground is available. 8. In view thereof, this writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.