Julee Bairagi v. The Registrar (Births And Deaths) And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/78/2022 Julee Bairagi ... Petitioner Vs.

The Registrar (Births and Deaths) And another ... Respondents Mrs. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioner Mr. Salim Mohammed ... for the respondents April 26, 2022 [GNC] Item No.18 Affidavit of service is taken on record.

The petitioner submits that the Registrar (Births and Deaths), Directorate of Health Services, Municipal Area, RBD No.1, Port Blair has failed and neglected to dispose of the representation dated August 3, 2019 despite repeated requests. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and her son are living separately from the petitioner's husband and their names in the birth certificate of the petitioner's son must be corrected. An application was filed by the petitioner before authority dated March 18, 2019. It is submitted that the authority required the petitioner to furnish certain documents. One of such document being an order of court indicating that the petitioner and her husband, are divorced. Ms. Nag submits that the petitioner and her husband have a strained relationship and they are living apart. The child is living with the petitioner. Accordingly, a representation was made before the authority, by the petitioner expressing her inability to produce any order of dissolution of marriage.

Having heard the submissions of the parties and without going into the merits of the claims of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction upon the Registrar (Births and Deaths), Directorate of Health Services, Municipal Area, RBD No.1, Port Blair, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated August 3, 2019 in accordance with law, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also the respondent No.2. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the respective parties.

Although, none appears for the respondent No.2, the matter is disposed of in the absence of the respondent No.2 as an innocuous prayer has been made by the petitioner for consideration of the representation pending with the authorities and this court is of the view that such prayer should be granted and the authority shall mandatorily hear the respondent No.2 at the time consideration of the petitioner representation.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

Parties are directed to act on the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)