HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31056 of 2025 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Mr. Naresh Chandra Tripathi, learned advocate appears on behalf of private respondent no.7 and files counter affidavit with copy served to Mr. Parmatma Nand Ojha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner. 2. Petitioner is widow. She has challenged order dated 6th August, 2025 passed by respondent no.2 (the Registrar) cancelling her husband's death certificate, certifying he died on 16th February, 2024. Mr. Tripathi submits, incorrect earlier date of death has been got recorded in the cancelled death certificate. Detailed enquiry revealed that the deceased died on 23rd February, 2024. Prior to his death, he had made will in favour of his client, son-in-law of the deceased. Mr. G.C. Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Tabish Sheik, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.6. 3. Today we have heard further submissions made on behalf of petitioner and, inter alia, private respondent no.7. Our attention was drawn to enquiry report dated 19th July, 2025 of the enquiry committee. It appears therefrom, concerned doctor was shown photograph of the deceased, which he could not recognize. Mr. Ojha handed-up x-ray report dated 15th February, 2025, printed on stationery of the doctor, diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis of the deceased. At page-24 is writing made by the doctor on 16th February, 2024 saying, inter alia, that the deceased died on 16th Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Shekhar Ojha, Anurag Kumar Ojha, Parmatma Nand Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Naresh Chandra Tripathi, Suchita Tripathi, Tabish Sheikh Aneesa .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) February, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. We have not been shown that the committee had confronted the doctor with his writing. Instead, a photograph was shown in the enquiry, report of which was made several months later on 19th July, 2025. It is enough for us to conclude that impugned order dated 6th August, 2025 is perverse as not based on material evidence. It is set aside and quashed. 4. Respondent no.2 will ascertain from the doctor, upon confronting him with the document disclosed at page-24, as to whether the document was written and signed by him. That will be material evidence. Upon making such further enquiry as may be necessary, fresh order be passed. 5. The writ petition is disposed of. For the purpose of fresh enquiry, assistance of petitioner and respondent no.7 may be required. September 17, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 31056 of 2025 2 (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Avnish Saxena, J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad