1 2025:CGHC:21205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2365 of 2025 1 - Avinash Peswani S/o Shri Suresh Peswani Aged About 32 Years R/o Shila Park Apartment, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Registrar Birth-Death Registration Branch, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. R. S. Marhas, Advocate along with Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondents no. 2 & 3 to decide the complaints/representations filed by the petitioner for correction of death certificate issued in the name of Gelaram, within stipulated time, in accordance with law. 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.” Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent No. 3 issued the death certificate of Gelamal, son of Batumal, who passed away on 18.07.1977. Subsequently, it was discovered that son of Gelamal, Totaram, had managed to get the name of the deceased altered in the death certificate to “Gokhumal @ Gelamal,” allegedly to cover up an act of fraud and forgery committed earlier. Upon gaining knowledge of this alteration, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act and, through a letter dated 24.07.2024, obtained a copy of the death certificate from respondent No. 3. Upon examining the document, the petitioner observed that the name “Gokhumal @ Gelamal” appeared to have been tampered with, as the addition of “Gokhumal Urf” seemed to have been made subsequently in the official register. Acting promptly, the petitioner submitted an application on 26.07.2024 to respondent No. 2, seeking the deletion of the added term “Gokhumal Urf” from the death certificate. In response, respondent No. 3 recorded the request on the note sheet and forwarded the matter to the District Registrar for appropriate guidance. However, despite the petitioner making repeated representations thereafter, no corrective action has been taken by the respondent authorities, who have remained inactive on the issue to date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken all necessary and lawful steps to seek correction in the death certificate of Gelamal, son of Batumal, by filing an application before respondent No. 2 requesting deletion of the word “Gokhumal Urf” erroneously mentioned before the name of the deceased. Acting upon this application, respondent No. 3 duly recorded the matter in the note sheet and forwarded it to the District Registrar for appropriate guidelines, thereby acknowledging the need for administrative scrutiny. 3 Further, vide letter dated 14.01.2025, respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to produce the original documents relied upon for conducting a proper inquiry. In compliance, the petitioner produced the said documents vide letter dated 30.01.2025. Despite these bona fide efforts and repeated representations dated 25.10.2024, 05.02.2025 and 28.04.2025 made by the petitioner, no corrective action has been taken till date by the respondent authorities. The inaction of the respondents in addressing a clear discrepancy in a public record reflects administrative apathy and has caused continuing prejudice to the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is praying for limited relief seeking a direction to the respondent No. 2 / Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur to take decision on the pending representation lastly submitted by petitioner on 28.04.2025 within some stipulated period in accordance with law. 4. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners seeking a direction to the concerned respondents to decide the representation, he is having no objection. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. In view of the above submissions and considering the limited prayer, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 / Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.04.2025 in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. It is further directed that the petitioner shall cooperate in the process by complying with the request made vide letter dated 14.01.2025 and 4 shall furnish all original documents and any other supporting material as may be required by the concerned authority during inquiry. 8. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE