Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Jayraj Nagesh Naik and Manoj Nagesh Naik, filed a writ petition challenging the orders dated 9.12.1980 and 13.1.2014 passed by the Executive Magistrate of Canacona and the Registrar of Births & Deaths, respectively, and also the validity of a Circular dated 10.5.1974 (6/74). The petitioners alleged that respondent no. 4, Rajendra Sugandas Paiginkar, fraudulently obtained a birth certificate showing his name as Rajendra Ramchandra Petkar, with Mohini Ramchandra Petkar as mother and Ramchandra Navasu Petkar as father, by misrepresenting facts before the Executive Magistrate. The birth certificate was issued on the directions of the Executive Magistrate on 9.12.1980. The petitioners claimed that respondent no. 4's actual date of birth is 24.9.1959 and he is the son of Suganda Quensar Poinguinim, and that he committed this fraud to grab the property of the petitioners' paternal aunt, Mohini Naik. The petitioners learned about the fraudulent birth certificate in July 2007 when it was produced by respondent no. 4 in L.A.C. No. 57 of 2007 pending before the Additional District Judge. They complained on 27.12.2007 against the illegal order. The main legal issues were whether the Executive Magistrate had the authority to direct registration under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and whether the Circular dated 10.5.1974 delegating such power to the Registrar was valid. The petitioners argued that the power under Section 13(3) is quasi-judicial and cannot be delegated, and that the Circular was invalid for want of publication. The respondents contended that the Circular was valid and the petition was barred by delay. The court analyzed Section 13(3) and held that the power to direct registration after the prescribed period is a quasi-judicial function that must be exercised by the Executive Magistrate personally. The Circular dated 10.5.1974, which directed the Registrar to register births without reference to the Executive Magistrate, was held to be without authority of law and invalid as it was not published in the Official Gazette. The court also held that fraud vitiates all proceedings and the writ petition was maintainable despite the delay. The court quashed the orders dated 9.12.1980 and 13.1.2014 and the birth certificate issued pursuant thereto.
Headnote
A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 13(3) - Power of Executive Magistrate - Quasi-judicial function - The power under Section 13(3) to direct registration of a birth after the prescribed period is a quasi-judicial function that must be exercised by the Executive Magistrate personally and cannot be delegated to the Registrar. The Circular dated 10.5.1974 purporting to delegate this power is invalid as it was not published in the Official Gazette and thus has no legal force. (Paras 6-10) B) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 13(3) - Delegation of power - Circular dated 10.5.1974 - Validity - The Circular dated 10.5.1974 issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Goa, directing that the Registrar may register births after the prescribed period without reference to the Executive Magistrate, is held to be without authority of law and invalid. The power under Section 13(3) is vested in the Executive Magistrate and cannot be delegated to the Registrar. (Paras 6-10) C) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 13(3) - Fraudulent birth certificate - Writ jurisdiction - Delay and laches - The petitioners challenged a birth certificate issued in 1980 but only became aware of the fraud in 2007. The court held that fraud vitiates all proceedings and the writ petition is maintainable despite the delay, as the fraud continued to operate. The birth certificate was quashed. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Executive Magistrate had the authority to direct the Registrar to register a birth under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and whether the Circular dated 10.5.1974 delegating such power to the Registrar is valid.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders dated 9.12.1980 and 13.1.2014, and declared the Circular dated 10.5.1974 invalid. The birth certificate issued pursuant to the order dated 9.12.1980 was also quashed.
Law Points
- Executive Magistrate's power under Section 13(3) of Registration of Births and Deaths Act
- 1969 is quasi-judicial and cannot be delegated
- Circular dated 10.5.1974 invalid for want of publication in Official Gazette
- Birth certificate obtained by fraud is void ab initio
- Writ petition maintainable despite delay due to continuing fraud
