Palakkad Municipality vs Palakkad Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 323 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

              RP.No.927 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 23748/2020

  FROM THE JUDGMENT, DATED 13.11.2020, IN WP(C) 23748/2020(P) OF
                       HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT:

             PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
             MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.

             BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

      1      ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 63 YEARS,
             S/O MUHAMMED ALI ROWTHER,
             14/371, THOTTUPALAM, ERIMAYOOR-1, PALAKKAD-678 546.

      2      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
             GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      3      DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
             PALAKKAD-687001.

      4      THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL,
             DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
             CIVIL STATION P.O, PALAKKAD-678 001.

             BY ADVS. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
                      SRI.K J MANURAJ, GP

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.927/2020 IN WP(C)No.23748/2020

                              -2-

                            ORDER

Dated this the 6th day of January 2021

The review petition is filed by the 4th

respondent-Palakkad Municipality.

2. The matter is related to issuance of

marriage certificate to the daughter of the writ

petitioner.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the

Municipality, on a mistaken impression that proper

application has been submitted by the parties

concerned, reported before this Court that the

marriage certificate can be issued on production of

authorisation certificate by the parties.

4. It appears that the writ petitioner's

daughter and her husband are working abroad. The

parties approached the Municipality for obtaining RP.No.927/2020 IN WP(C)No.23748/2020

the marriage certificate. However, before

completing further formalities, they left abroad.

5. The Municipality has come up with a

review stating that the parties had not signed in the

relevant register and they have not appeared before

the Officer concerned.

6. Taking note of the peculiar circumstances,

I am of the view that the review petition can be

disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The parties shall appear before the

Secretary of the Municipality through video

conferencing.

(ii) On being satisfied with the identity of the

parties concerned, the registration of the marriage

shall be accorded.

(iii) The relevant column shall be left open for RP.No.927/2020 IN WP(C)No.23748/2020

the signature of the parties. The parties are directed

to put signature in the relevant column within a

period of 10 months.

(iv) The marriage certificate will be issued only

on the above condition.

It is made clear that if the parties concerned

failed to sign the register within the time prescribed

above, the marriage certificate will be cancelled.

The review petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE akv