Mr. Somarajan N vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 1442 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.27045 OF 2020(E)


PETITIONER/S:

            MR. SOMARAJAN N
            AGED 81 YEARS
            S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT SMRITHY KUNNATHU VEEDU,
            HOUSE NO.252, JANAYUGAM NAGAR- 59,
            KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM 691 008
            FROM PRANAVAM, TOWN LIMIT, KILIKOLLOOR P.O.,
             KOLLAM 691 004

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
            SRI.K.V.VIJAYAN
            SMT.V.BEENA

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     THE SECRETARY
            KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM 691 001

      2     THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS
            KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM 691 001

      3     THR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
            COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM 691 013

      4     THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
            SANKERS HOSPITAL, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM 691 008

            R1-2 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT
            R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
            R3 SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.27045 OF 2020(E)

                                         2




                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner's son required a birth certificate to

be produced before the Indian Embassy in USA, for

obtaining a green card. He filed an application before

the second respondent on 15.10.2020, seeking issuance

of birth certificate. It is stated that the second

respondent returned the application of the petitioner

stating that the birth of the petitioner's son was not

registered at the Kollam Corporation. The grievance of

the petitioner is that, the second respondent ought to

have issued a non availability certificate, if they were

satisfied that the records did not disclose the date of

birth of the son of the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned senior Government Pleader

for respondents 1 to 3 and also Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu

appearing for the fourth respondent.

3. It seems that the stand taken by the second WP(C).No.27045 OF 2020(E)

respondent is that, the date of birth has not been

entered in the register maintained by the statutory

authority. If that be so, they ought to have issued a

non availability certificate.

4. Having considered this, I am inclined to

dispose of the Writ Petition itself, with a direction that

the second respondent shall take on record the

application submitted by the petitioner, seeking issuance

of the birth certificate of his son and after perusing the

records and confirming that the date of birth is not

recorded, non availability certificate shall be issued to

the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C).No.27045 OF 2020(E)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S SON

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER'S SON

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 729/2020 DATED 10.3.2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10443/2016 DATED 22.3.2016

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL