ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order/s by quashing the endorsement dated 06.01.2018 issued by the Respondent No.3 Health Officer, Mahalakshimpuram Region, BBMP produced at Annexure-A and allow this petition directing the Respondent No.3 to register and issue the Death Certificate of petitioner’s husband Mr.Shanthakumar S/o Mr. Siddappa. b. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner’s husband, an excavator operator with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), was washed away in heavy rain while working in a stormwater drain on 20.05.2017. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) of BBMP had ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs which was paid to the petitioner. An FIR in Crime No.178/2017 was registered with Mahalakshmipuram Police Station. Mahalakshmipuram Police Station have on 27.03.2018, issued an endorsement that the body of the husband of the petitioner was not found. The petitioner, having been requesting for issuance of a death certificate in respect of her husband, the said death certificate not having been issued, is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Sri.B.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the death of the husband of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent authorities themselves by making payment of compensation amount and there being extensive news coverage as regards the incident both in English and Kannada newspapers and the body of the husband of the petitioner having been washed away in stormwater drain and not having been found, the respondent ought to have acted and issued the death certificate. 4. Sri.K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for BBMP would submit that there is a procedure which is required to be followed for the purpose of issuance of death certificate inasmuch as in terms of Rule 7 of Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (for short, ‘Rules’), a certificate as to cause of death is required to be issued under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Rules in Form No.4 where the death occurs in hospitals and in Form No.4A in case of death occurring in other places. It is only on that basis that an application for the issuance of a death certificate can be considered. No body has been found if the husband were to return alive, the death certificate would be false. He submits that since no such certificate has been produced by the petitioner, the respondent is unable to issue a certificate. 5. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable to obtain such death certificate since there is no body which is available for a medical practitioner to examine the body and issue a certificate. On this ground, he submits that the respondent ought to issue a death certificate. 6. Heard Sri.B.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for BBMP and perused the papers. 7. The death report is required to be submitted in Form 2. The said report reads as under:- 8. A perusal of the said report would indicate that the personal details of the deceased have to be stated along with the informant details. 9. It is further required for statistical information that the medical attention received by the deceased be, whether the death was medically certified, name of the deceased and actual cause of death are to be stated. This death report does not require any certification by either a hospital or doctor. However, it is stated that the death report is required to be accompanied by Form 4 or Form 4A, which is a cause of concern in the present matter, which reads as under:- 10. Rule 7 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “7. Form of certificate under Section 10.-The certificate as to the cause of death required under sub-section (3) of Section 10 shall be issued in Form No.4 in case of death occurring in hospitals, whether Government or Private, in Form 4-A in case of deaths occurring in other places and the Registrar shall, after making necessary entries in the register of deaths, forward all such certificates to the Chief Registrar in this behalf by the 10th of the month immediately following the month to which the certificates relate.” 11. A perusal of Form 4 would indicate that the same is relating to the death which has occurred in an hospital and in such cases, though information sought for is in the said form are required to be made available. Since in the present case, the death has not occurred in the hospital, the said Form 4 would not be applicable. 12. Form 4A is made applicable for non-institutional deaths which is stated to be for deaths which have occurred outside the hospital. In terms of Form 4A, apart from the information relating to the person, in respect of cause of death the information relating to immediate cause of death is required to be furnished and if this is due to any disease or morbid condition, the interval between onset and death is required to be stated and this is required to be certified by a medical practitioner or medical attendant with his/her registration number. 13. Thus, even regarding Form 4A, there is a certification required to be made by a doctor and for that purpose, the cause of death has to be stated. Without such certification, Form 4A cannot be submitted to the respondent – authorities. 14. This is a peculiar case where the husband of the petitioner is stated to have been washed away in heavy rain while carrying out work for respondent in repairing a stormwater drain. The respondent officials have themselves searched for the body of the husband of the petitioner, the body was not found and thereafter on humanitarian grounds, the respondent has awarded a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner, the insistence now being made on the basis of Rule 7 of the Rules for a certificate issued by a doctor indicating in terms of Form 4A in my considered opinion is completely unsustainable and would amount to injustice being caused to the petitioner. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner did not expire in a hospital; hence it is a certificate in Form 4A which is required to be issued by a doctor. A perusal of Form 4A would indicate that the doctor would have to certify if the deceased was under his treatment, the cause of death, significant conditions contributing to the death, the time of death and interval between on-set of the cause of death and the death. A perusal of Form 4A would indicate that the doctor would have to certify if the deceased was under his treatment, the cause of death, significant conditions contributing to the death, the time of death and interval between on-set of the cause of death and the death. These are all aspects which could have only been certified by a doctor if the husband was under his treatment and if there was a body available. The report in Form 4A is to be sent along with a report in terms of Form 2. 16. When there is no body which is available, the question of respondent insisting for a certificate in terms of Form 4A would be completely illogical, the same can never be satisfied. Insistence on the same knowing fully well that it can never be satisfied has caused grave injustice to the petitioner (no pun intended). 17. The husband of the petitioner having expired in the year 2017, the petitioner is deprived of a death certificate for the last 6 years. The issuance of both birth and death certificate has civil consequences, without such death certificate, the petitioner cannot take up activities which require the production of a death certificate. 18. As observed above, the death report not requiring any medical certification, it is only Form 4 and Form 4A, which require such certification. It could always have been available for the authorities to consider the death report and issue the death certificate taking into account the peculiar circumstances where the body has been washed away in the storm water drain. The authorities cannot act in a pedantic manner giving high preference to procedure when the substantial injustice could be caused by doing so. Procedure has been often said is only an handmaiden of justice and as such all procedures are to yield to the greater cause of justice and not cause injustice. 19. Necessary institutional mechanism could be put in place to have a check and balance system for issuance of death certificate where a body is not found by taking approval of higher authorities and while granting such permission record the reasons for doing so. The Corporation authorities cannot chose to keep quite and do nothing and thereby deprive the petitioner of the death certificate of her husband. 20. The Corporation authorities cannot chose to keep quite and do nothing and thereby deprive the petitioner of the death certificate of her husband. 20. The apprehension on part of the respondent that if the husband of the petitioner were to return alive at a later point of time, the death certificate would amount to a false death certificate is again a baseless contention which is required to be rejected. It only appears that the corporation is clutching at straws to try and justify its inaction. If at all the husband of the petitioner were to return alive, the respondent can always cancel the death certificate. Merely because there is such an apprehension, a living person cannot be deprived of a benefit of a death certificate of a person who is dead. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER 1. The Writ Petition is allowed, a certiorari is issued quashing the endorsement dated 06.01.2018 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A. 2. A mandamus is issued, Respondent No.3 is directed to issue necessary death certificate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in terms of the observations made above.