[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sri Prabhat Das vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 2 April, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010290112025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/429/2026
SRI PRABHAT DAS
SON OF LATE JAGABANDHU DAS, RESIDENT OF NO. 1 SILDUBI, P.O.
KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK, DISTRICT - GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. PIN-785609
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI
4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
GOLAGHAT
P.O. GOLAGHAT
DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM. PIN-785621.
5:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
GOLAGHAT
P.O. AND DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM PIN-785621.
6:CO -DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 2/5
BOKAKHAT
BOKAKHAT CO-DISTRICT
P.O. BOKAKHAT
DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM.
PIN- 785612
7:REGISTRAR (BIRTH AND DEATH)
BOKAKHAT PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE P.O. BOKAKHAT
DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM. PIN- 785612
8:SRI KHEM BAHADUR CHETRY
SON OF LATE KRISHNA BAHADUR CHETRY
RESIDENT OF NO. 1 KOHORA
P.O. KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK
DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM. PIN- 785609
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. M Dutta
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. BJ Talukdar, Senior Advocate,
Mr. PK Medhi
Mr. A Chaliha, Standing Counsel,
Health Department, Govt. of Assam
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
02.04.2026
Heard Mr. M Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. Mr. BJ Talukdar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. PK Medhi,
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6 and
Mr. A Chaliha, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2,
3, 4 and 7.
Page No.# 3/5
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court
dispenses with the notice upon the respondent No.8.
3. The petitioner herein has challenged the death certificate issued by the
respondent No.7 on 11.06.2023 wherein the date of death of the father of the
respondent No.8 was mentioned as 22.12.1969.
4. Mr. BJ Talukdar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6 submitted that the petitioner in the meantime had
already approached the respondent No.6 for cancellation of the permission for
delayed Death Registration and upon hearing both sides and carrying out
necessary verification, the said permission for delayed Death Registration which
was already granted had been cancelled on 17.10.2025. Taking into account that
the said permission for delayed Death Registration had been cancelled, the
question, therefore, arises as to whether the Death Certificate so issued by the
respondent No.7 can at all survive in absence of the permission for delayed
Death Registration being cancelled.
5. This Court finds it relevant to take note of Section 13 of the Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the said provision is extracted hereinbelow:
"13. Delayed registration of births and deaths.--(1) Any birth or death
of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period
specified therefor, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be
registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed.
(2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the
Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be
registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and
on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made
Page No.# 4/5
before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the
State Government.
(3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year
of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a
magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the
correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee.
(4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any
action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register
any birth or death within the time specified therefor and any such birth or
death may be registered during the pendency of any such action."
6. A perusal of the above Section and, more particularly, Sub-Section (3) of
Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 would show that a
Death Certificate can be issued after 1(one) year only after an order is made by
a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or by an Executive Magistrate
authorised by the District Magistrate, having jurisdiction over the area where the
birth or death has taken place, after verifying the correctness of the birth or
death and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed
7. In view of the cancellation of the permission for delayed Death Registration
dated 18.05.2023, the Death Certificate dated 11.06.2023 of the father of the
respondent No.8 cannot survive. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that
the Death Certificate dated 11.06.2023 has to be declared as null and void.
8. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition accordingly, stands
disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i). That the death certificate dated 11.06.2023 of the father of the
Page No.# 5/5
respondent No.8 cannot be acted upon.
(ii). It is further observed that in the circumstance, a challenge is made to
the cancellation of the permission of delayed Death Registration dated
18.05.2023 by the respondent No.8 and such cancellation is interfered with, the
Death Certificate dated 11.06.2023 issued in the name of the father of the
respondent No.8 shall revive.
9. The writ petition, stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
