Latelu Ram v. State Of C.G. And ORS

"g!

§ )_'

wwm TD

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

AT BILASPUR (c G ) '

w.P.(C}No.

HOQ 0f 2013/ / Latelu Rag S/o KapilVgged about PETITIONER years, R/o SatnaIHi a Village and Post Raipura, Police tation Purani Basti, uoelm w Tahsil Civil and Revenue District - Presented R No hy Shml'tymm....i.

Ralpur (C G ) Dated W43?

-

VERSUS

Chhattisgarh, through RESPONDENTS : l State of \ Secretaly, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya New Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) r 2.

Nayab Tahsilda (Poonam Sharma) Tahsil Office, G.E.

Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Director, District Planning and Statical Office in the office of Collectorate Raipur, District -- Raipur (C.G.).

.

. Station In-charge, Police Station Purani Basti, District - Raipur (C.G.).

Registrar, Birth and Death, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District - Raipur l;

(C.G.).

Shesh Narayan Das, Kotwar, R/o Village Raipuray Block Office Dharsiwa, P.S.

Purani Basti, Tahsil and District - Raipur (C.G.).

Officer -incharge, Polic Station - L e Kotwali, District - Raipur (C.G.).

'

/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA {1/ PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS:- As above in the cause title.

'

.

PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:- As above in the cause title.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH 2 BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1106 of 2013 £9 PETITIONER Latelu Ram I I

Versus

'

'

State of Chhattisgarh & others RESPONDENTS I (Writ Petition under ArtICIe 226 of the Constitution of India) I I , '

.

Slngle Bench Hon ble Shrl Prltlnker Dlwaker, Present :- Shrl H B Agrawal learned senior counsel assusted by Smt Itu Ram v V , .

Mukherjee Advocate for the petmoner Shn N Naha Roy P L forthe State

ORDER

a (20.12.2013) Grievance of the petitioner is that he had approached the competent authority'ie. Nayab Tehsildar, Raipur for getting 'Death Certificate'

in respect of death of one Iate Budhram Satnami S/o Dukalu Satnami who happens to be his paternal uncle but the application has been rejected solely on the ground that no documentary evidence has been produced.

2.'

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Nayab Tehsildar should have conducted detailed enquiry before passing the order and his'application could not have been rejected in a mechanical manner without affording prdper opportunity to the petitioner to produce the evidence.

3.

Drawing the attention of this Court towards Section 13(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act counsel for the petitioner submits that proper enquiry should have been conducted by the Nayab Tehsrldar before passrng any order on the application of the petitioner 4.

State counsel has supported the order impugned. 5.

From the order impugned it is apparent that application of the petitioner has been dismissed in a mechanical manner on the Same date without any verification. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to frle a fresh application before the Tehsildar, who, in turn, would pass an appropriate order on such application after conducting detailed enquiry.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on merits of the case and Tehsildar would decide the application of the petitioner after considering all the aspect of the case in accordance with law. Sdll Pntmker Dlwakal'

r Judge Atul