Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)

N.Vedantam vs The Executive Officer on 10 December, 2010

In Kanai Mallick v. State of Tripura reported in AIR 2007 Gau 57, the deceased Nityananda Mallik was serving as a Constable under the Tripura Government and was a permanent resident of Singhamura village of Hapania Panchayat under Dukli Block of West Tripura district. Prior to the death, his name was registered in the Panchayat ordinary residents' register, which was maintained under the authority of the second respondent therein. While he was undergoing treatment at BINR Hospital, Kolkata, he died on 03.03.2006, due to cardio respiratory failure. Accordingly, the Medical Officer of the said hospital issued a death certificate, dated 3-3-2006, indicating therein that he was a resident of West Tripura district. Thereafter, an application was addressed by the Joint Resident Commissioner of Tripura Bhavan, Kolkata to the Officer-in-Charge, Bhawanipur Police Station, Kolkata requesting for 'No Objection' certificate to carry the dead body of Nityananda Mallik by Air to Agartala for the purpose of cremation. On the basis of permission granted, the dead body was carried to Tripura and the body was also cremated in his home village on 4-3-2006, within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, second respondent therein. Thereafter, an application, dated 12-5-2006 was addressed to the Registrar for issuance of death certificate and the prescribed fee was also paid. However, the Registrar refused to register the death of deceased Nityananda Mallik on the ground that the death did not occur within his territorial jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the same, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, seeking for a direction to act in terms of Section 7(2) of the Act. After examining statutory provisions and the objects and reasons of the enactment of the Act in the year 1969 and the earlier Act which covered the registration was known as the Births, Deaths and Marriage Registration Act, 1886, a learned Judge of Gauhati High Court, at Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Mr. P Roy Barman vs Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee on 20 August, 2020

In this context, counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in case of Kanai Mallik Vs. State of Tripura and Ors, WP(C) No.305/2006 dated 21st December, 2006 in which it has been held that whenever such information is provided to the Registrar, he has to act on it, whether the event has occurred within his jurisdiction or not.
Tripura High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1