Madras High CourtWP/2639/2025disposed of

A.Kayalvizhi v. The Commissioner

2025-01-30Honourable Mr Justice S. Sounthar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated 30.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR A.Kayalvizhi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.

2. The Deputy Director (Public Health), Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.

3. The Zonal Health Officer, Zone-V, Greater Chennai Corporation, Mint Bus Depot, Chennai.

4. The Registrar, Birth and Death (Zone V), Greater Chennai Corporation, Mint Bus Depot, Chennai.

5. The Office Incharge, Greater Chennai Corporation Burial Ground, Kilpauk Cementry, Chennai-10.

6. The Medical Record Officer, Rajiv Ganthi General Government Hospital, Chennai 600 003.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2024 based on the documents submitted by her in a time framed manner.

For Petitioner : Mr. L.Prabahar For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan, Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 Mr.G.Ameedias, Government Advocate for sixth respondent

ORDER

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2024.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of Manohar Solomon Daniel, who died on 22.11.2023. It is further stated by the petitioner that in the death certificate of her husband, in the column meant for wife, the name of one ' Marry Jayam '

is mentioned erroneously, instead of the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the fourth respondent, seeking correction of the death certificate, by substituting the name of the petitioner, in the place of' 'Marry jayam'. The said representation has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.G.Ameedias, learned Government Advocate takes notice for sixth respondent .

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law and orders will be passed within a time stipulated by this court.

5. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this court is inclined to direct the fourth respondent to

consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.11.2024 and pass final orders on its own merits, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and other interested parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

30.01.2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mst To