Section 15 mandates adherence to natural justice before cancelling birth or death registration entries.

The petitioner claims that one Shri Nathu executed a Will in his favor in 1991 regarding a "disputed property" in Dehradun

Following Nathu’s death on 03.02.1993, the petitioner performed the last rites and eventually obtained a death certificate from the Registrar of Births and Deaths on 04.02.2017

Based on this, the petitioner successfully mutated the property in his name

Subsequently, private respondents alleged the death certificate was forged, claiming Nathu had died in 1945, leading to criminal proceedings and challenges to the mutation

On 10.04.2023, acting on complaints from respondent nos. 5 and 6, the Registrar (Respondent No. 2) cancelled the death certificate without prior notice to the petitioner

The petitioner challenged this cancellation as a violation of natural justice

1. Whether the Registrar of Births and Deaths can cancel a death certificate under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, without affording a hearing to the affected stakeholders

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which permits the Registrar to correct or cancel entries in the register if it is "proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar" that the entry is erroneous, fraudulent, or improperly made

Principles of Natural Justice, asserting that statutory "satisfaction" must be reached through a non-arbitrary process

The court found it undisputed that the petitioner, as a stakeholder whose property rights were tied to the validity of the certificate, was not heard before the cancellation

It noted that even the municipal authorities admitted in internal reports that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing

The court reasoned that the requirement in Section 15 for the Registrar to be "satisfied" before cancelling an entry inherently precludes arbitrary action

Such satisfaction can only be legally valid if it is arrived at after adhering to the principles of natural justice, which require that any person whose interests are prejudicially affected by an administrative or quasi-judicial act must be given a fair hearing

The High Court set aside the impugned cancellation order dated 10.04.2023 and remanded the matter to respondent no. 7

The respondent was directed to pass a reasoned and detailed order after affording the petitioner and other relevant stakeholders an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks

The writ petition was allowed