Delhi High Court
Tamana Gulshan vs Table Tennis Federation Ofindia ... on 6 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4508/2015 and CM No.8166/2015 (directions)
TAMANA GULSHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rohil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Singh,
Advocates
versus
TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sandeep Banga and Mr.Rajeev
Kapoor, Advocates for R-1
Mr. M.Qayamuddin and Mr. Sumita Banu,
Advocates for R-2 with Mr. Manjit Singh Dua,
General Secretary, DSTTA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 06.05.2015
1. Mr. Qayamuddin enters appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 /
Delhi State Table Tennis Association (in short DSTTA). It is the learned
counsel's submission that revised guidelines dated 21.03.2015 were issued
for submission of date of birth certificates.
2. It is stated by Mr. Qayamuddin that relevant guidelines were issued
by the first respondent i.e., Table Tennis Federation of India; according to
which, where date of birth was registered by the authority constituted under
the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 (in short the 1969 Act)
beyond
the period of one year of the individual's birth then, certain other documents
as listed out in clause 3 of the aforementioned guidelines were required to be
W.P.(C) 4508/2015 page 1 of 4
examined. These being :
"...i). Original Discharged summary from the hospital
where the child was born.
ii). Original copy of the maternity leave sanctioned by the
employers of the mother, in case she is employed. (The said
documents should clearly bear the name and seal of Competent
Authority granting the said leave).
iii). With the support of documents 1 and 2 above, the parents
should obtain Judicial Order from the First Class Magistrate.
To obtain the same, six month period shall be allowed..."
2.2 It is also the learned counsel's submission that as per the provision of
Section 13(3) of the 1969 Act, any birth or death which has not been
registered within one year of its occurrence, could have been registered by
the authority constituted under the 1969 Act, only on an order made by the
Magistrate of First Class or the Presidency Magistrate after authenticating
the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of prescribed fee.
3. Based on the above, concerns were raised by the learned counsels for
respondent no.1 and 2 vis-a-vis the registration certificates obtained by the
petitioner, which is appended at page 34, of the paper book.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. What is not in
dispute, is that, a registration certificate has been issued by the concerned
authority constituted under the 1969 Act. As per the said certificate, the
petitioner was born on 08.10.2004. However, the registration certificate has
been issued on 18.12.2007. While, the provisions of the 1969 Act require
the applicant to obtain an order of the Magistrate when, registration is made
after a period of one year has elapsed since the date of birth, there is, in my
W.P.(C) 4508/2015 page 2 of 4
view, a presumption in law that the concerned authority constituted under
the 1969 Act has taken recourse to the relevant provisions of the Act, before
issuing the certificate, unless it is suitably rebutted. This is a matter which
concerns the authority constituted under the 1969 Act.
5. Therefore, for the second respondent to raise objections based on its
guidelines, according to me, is at least, at this stage, not proper. The 1969
Act also provides for cancellation or correction of the entry made in the
Register of births and deaths. The relevant provision in this behalf is,
Section 15 of the 1969 Act. In case respondent no.1 or 2 has any doubt, it
could always move the concerned authority under the said provision.
5.1 Be that as it may, to put the matter beyond doubt, the Registrar of
Births and Deaths, which is the authority constituted under the 1969 Act, is
impleaded as a party to the present proceedings. An amended memo of
parties be filed within one week from today.
5.2 Pending further enquiry into the matter, the petitioner will be allowed
to participate in the tournament. This direction is issued also for the reason
that the petitioner has adverted to several tournaments that she has
participated in past. Reference to these tournaments has been given in
paragraph 6 of the petition. The respondents, it appears, have allowed the
petitioner to participate, all this while.
6. Accordingly, as indicated above, the petitioner will be allowed to
participate in the tournament. If she were to win the tournament then only
the question would arise : as to whether she would be entitled to a prize. In
W.P.(C) 4508/2015 page 3 of 4
case she wins the tournament, the prize will be withheld subject to further
orders in the petition.
6.1 I am informed by the counsels for both sides that the petitioner can
participate in both under age 12 years and under age 15 years category. The
learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has filed an entry
for both categories.
7. List on 05.08.2015.
8. Dasti to all parties.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 06, 2015
yg
W.P.(C) 4508/2015 page 4 of 4
