Smt. S. Malini vs The Registrar of Births and Deaths

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—The Petitioner, a Government Servant, having entered into Government Service in the year 1939 was later removed from service w.e.f. 28.02.2009. The Petitioner is a highly qualified person. In all her school and college educational records her date of birth has been entered as 12.05.1964 and it had been accepted by the Government after her entry into Government Service. After removal from the Government Service, the Petitioner presented a petition in Crl. Misc. No. 339/2009 on 12.03.2009 before the VII Additional C.M.M., Bangalore, u/s 13(3) of Registration of Births and Deaths Act. 1969 (for short, ''Act'') r/w. Rule-10(3) of the Karnataka Birth and Deaths Rules (for short ''Rules''), seeking a direction to the Registrar of Births and Deaths to register her birth on 12.05.1964 in the register of Births on the ground that her birth has not been registered in the prescribed registers maintained by the Registrar. The said petition came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 19.05.2009 mainly on the ground that there has been delay in approaching the authorities and also on the ground that she was a Government. Servant, therefore, the Act is not applicable to her. The said order rejecting the petition was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No. 281/2009. The said Revision Petition came to be rejected by order dated 29.09.2010 and thereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate came to be affirmed. It is to quash these two orders passed by the Courts below, the Petitioner has presented this petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The principal contention urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, in the light of the mandate of Section 13(3) of the Act, the Magistrate had no alternative but to direct registration of the birth of the Petitioner and such request could not have been rejected on the ground of delay in the absence of any time limit prescribed under law. It is also her contention that in a petition u/s 13(3) of the Act, the Magistrate is only required to inquire as to the correctness of the birth and not the date of birth and on ascertainment of the birth of the Petitioner, the Magistrate ought to have directed the registration of the birth and having failed to do so, the orders passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Revisional Court are perverse and contrary to the mandate of law. In this regard, reliance was also placed on couple of decisions of this Court. It is an undisputed fact, that, in all her educational records, the date of birth of the Petitioner has been shown as 12.05.1964. It is not the complaint of the Petitioner that the date of birth as entered in her school records is not correct. Similarly, at the time of entering Government Service, her date of birth has been, entered as 12.05.1964 and the same has been accepted by the Government before declaring her probation. At no point of time during her service, the Government had disputed the correctness of the date of birth of the Petitioner as recorded in her school records. The whole exercise appears to have been commenced only after the Petitioner was removed from the Government Service. As on the date of the presentation of the petition before the learned Magistrate, the Petitioner was aged about 45 years. For such a long period, the Petitioner had not raised her little finger to get her birth registered in the Register of Births maintained by the Registrar, as per the Act. It is not as if that the Petitioner had no knowledge about the non-registration of her birth in the prescribed register. It is not her say that for the first time only after her removal from the service she came to know that her birth has not been registered in accordance with the Act. It is also not the contention of the Petitioner that, her date of birth was not 12.05.1964, but some thing different. Thus, the petition filed before the learned Magistrate was actuated with delay and laches. Of course, the provision of the Act does not prescribe any time limit for filing petition before the Magistrate seeking direction for registration of the birth. However, that does not mean that a person could approach the Magistrate at any point of time on his/her sweet will and wish. The Petitioner ought to have approached the Magistrate within a reasonable time. Having not approached the Magistrate with such prayer within a reasonable time, petition filed before the Magistrate was presented belatedly and there was no ground for the Magistrate to exercise jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Courts below are justified in rejecting the petition. The Courts are not meant for the persons who sleep over their rights and obligations. The Petitioner ought to have exercised her lights diligently and not having done so, it is not open for her to contend that her petition filed nearly about 45 years after her birth should have been acceded to by the learned Magistrate. Of course, in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court has considered the scope of enquiry u/s 13 of the Act. However, in none of these decisions, it has been laid down that even a petition filed belatedly should be considered on merits. Therefore, the principles laid down in the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. The Petitioner having served as a Government Servant for over 10 years and having been fully aware of the date of birth as entered in the school records and also in the service records, it. cannot be said that she had no knowledge about the non-registration of her birth in the prescribed registers. In addition to this, at this stage, in the light of the fact that her date of birth has been recorded both in school records and also in service records, which is not disputed, no purpose would be served by directing the registration of her Birth at this belated stage. In this view of the matter, this Court declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected.