Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Savio Jose Xavier Viegas, challenged an order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Panaji, under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which cancelled his birth registration bearing No. B3931D/1999 dated 22.11.1999. The complaint was filed by Respondent No.1, Dr. Mariano Godinho, who alleged that the petitioner's birth registration was fraudulent and that another birth registration from 1983 pertained to the same person. The petitioner argued that the Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 15, as there was no finding of fraud or improper entry, and that the Registrar failed to consider the petitioner's documentary evidence, including his baptism certificate, school leaving certificate, national trade certificate, confirmation certificate, and affidavits of his aunts. The respondent contended that the 1999 registration was improper and that the Registrar had the power to cancel it. The High Court held that the Registrar's power under Section 15 is limited to cases where the entry was fraudulently or improperly made, and that the Registrar cannot decide disputes over parentage or title. The court found that the impugned order was passed without proper inquiry and without considering the petitioner's evidence, thus exceeding jurisdiction and violating natural justice. The court quashed the order and directed the Registrar to restore the petitioner's birth registration.
Headnote
A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 15 - Cancellation of Birth Registration - Jurisdiction - The Registrar under Section 15 can cancel or correct an entry only if it is proved that the entry was fraudulently or improperly made. The power does not extend to deciding disputes over parentage or title based on competing registrations. In this case, the Registrar cancelled the petitioner's 1999 birth registration without finding fraud or improper entry, and without considering the petitioner's documentary evidence, thereby exceeding his jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36) B) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 15 - Inquiry - Natural Justice - The Registrar must conduct a proper inquiry and consider all relevant evidence before passing an order under Section 15. The impugned order was based solely on documents produced by the respondent, ignoring the petitioner's baptism certificate, school leaving certificate, and affidavits of aunts, thus violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registrar under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 has the jurisdiction to cancel a birth registration on grounds other than fraud or improper entry, and whether the impugned order was passed without proper inquiry and consideration of evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 13.12.2023, and directed the Registrar to restore the petitioner's birth registration bearing No. B3931D/1999 dated 22.11.1999.
Law Points
- Section 15 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act
- 1969
- cancellation of birth registration
- fraud
- improper entry
- jurisdiction
- inquiry
- natural justice
