Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Savinder Kaur vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 16 April, 2009

Author: Ajai Lamba

Bench: Ajai Lamba

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                                   Civil Writ Petition No.18213 of 2008
                                           Date of Decision: April 16, 2009


Savinder Kaur
                                                            .....PETITIONER(S)

                                     VERSUS


Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi & Others
                                                           .....RESPONDENT(S)

                                 .        .     .


CORAM:                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -            Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the
                      petitioner.

                      Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,                         for
                      respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                      None for respondent No.4.


                                 .        .     .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

Savinder Kaur has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make corrections in the record of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (for short, `CBSE') regarding the names of mother and father in the Matriculation and 10+2 Certificates.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was earlier adopted by way of adoption deed which subsequently was set CWP No.18213 of 2008 [2] aside. The record of CBSE indicates the adoptive parents of the petitioner. In view of the judgment, however, names of biological parents are required to be entered as the parents of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the adoption once completed, cannot be set aside and there are disputed questions of facts.

In view of the nature of dispute that has arisen and there being disputed questions of facts, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

No ground for invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.

The petition is dismissed.



                                                         (AJAI LAMBA)
April 16, 2009                                              JUDGE
avin