Sengolraj v. The Chief Registrar Of Birth And Deaths

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.9105 of 2026 Sengolraj ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Chief Registrar of Birth and Deaths, (Commissioner of Public Health and Preventive Medicine), Chennai - 600 006.

2.The District Registrar of Births and Deaths, District Registrar of Births and Deaths Office, Pudukkottai District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi Division Office, Pudukkottai District.

4.The Registrar of Births and Deaths, Ettichery Village, Thiruppunavasal (PO), Puthampurpanchayat, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondents 1/6

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in O.Mu.No. 16/2026/A8 dated 30.01.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents, particularly the 3rd and 4th respondents, to consider the petitioner's application along with supporting documents and conduct proper enquiry in accordance with law, thereafter pass appropriate orders for registration of the petitioner's birth dated 13.11.1964 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Shriram For Respondent : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.01.2026.

2.By the said order, the request made by the petitioner to register his birth was rejected.

2/6

3.The petitioner was born on 13.11.1964 and it is stated that his birth was not registered at that time. When the petitioner has now made an application before the third respondent, who is the competent authority, the same was rejected on the ground that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act came into force only in the year 1969. Therefore, such rejection cannot be sustained.

4.The issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the judgment of this Court made in Selvaganesan Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and others [W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025, dated 08.10.2025], wherein it has already been held that even with reference to persons born prior to the coming into force of the Act, the third respondent would be the competent authority.

5.In view thereof, the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted and the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: 3/6

i. The impugned order dated 30.01.2026 shall stand set aside and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the third respondent. ii. The third respondent shall consider the application on its own merits, along with the the proof and documents submitted by the petitioner, in the manner known to law and pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 27.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No ps 4/6

To 1.The Chief Registrar of Birth and Deaths, (Commissioner of Public Health and Preventive Medicine), Chennai - 600 006.

2.The District Registrar of Births and Deaths, District Registrar of Births and Deaths Office, Pudukkottai District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi Division Office, Pudukkottai District.

4.The Registrar of Births and Deaths, Ettichery Village, Thiruppunavasal (PO), Puthampurpanchayat, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

5/6

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

ps 27.04.2026 6/6