01Facts
The petitioner’s husband went missing on 22.04.2024 after falling into the Narmada canal.
¶ 4On 24.04.2024, his body was spotted in a canal siphon at Sanadra, but it became stuck and could not be retrieved due to heavy water flow, despite intervention by the N.D.R.F.
¶ 4Relatives identified the body via video, and a "Janvajog" (missing person) entry was subsequently closed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police following this identification.
¶ 4On 15.07.2024, the Police Inspector issued a certificate for death registration.
¶ 4However, the respondent authorities (Registrar of Births and Deaths) refused to register the death, citing the lack of a physical body and a Post Mortem (P.M.) report.
¶ 4, 8The petitioner, facing financial hardship and bank notices for a loan of Rs. 23,00,000/-, sought a mandamus for the issuance of the death certificate.
¶ 402Issues
i.Whether the respondent authorities can be directed to register a death entry under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, when the death is identified and certified by police authorities but the body remains physically unrecoverable.
¶ 7, 903Law Applied
The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in conjunction with the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
¶ 3Where conclusive evidence of death is provided by a competent statutory authority (such as the Police and N.D.R.F.), the absence of a Post Mortem report or a recovered body does not bar the registration of death.
¶ 904Reasoning
The court found that the Police Inspector’s certificate (Annexure-E) clearly established that the deceased was seen floating and subsequently stuck in the siphon.
¶ 9The court noted that the identification of the body by relatives through video and the failed retrieval operation by the N.D.R.F. due to technical impossibility constituted sufficient proof of death.
¶ 9It observed that the respondent’s insistence on a P.M. report was unsustainable given the physical circumstances.
¶ 8The court emphasized that the petitioner, a widow, was facing significant hardship in claiming government benefits and insurance to settle a substantial bank loan, and that administrative technicalities should not prevent the exercise of statutory duties when the fact of death is undisputed by the police.
¶ 4, 7, 905Holding
The evidence on record was sufficient to prove the death of the petitioner's husband.
¶ 9The High Court allowed the petition and directed Respondents No. 2 and 3 to register the death entry of Pradipbhai Dudhabhai Vankar and issue the death certificate to the petitioner forthwith.
¶ 10Rule was made absolute.
¶ 10Original Court PDF
RAMILABEN PRADIPBHAI VANKAR WD/O. PRADIPBHAI DUDHABHAI VANKARvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
