Page No.# 1/30 GAHC010183412025 2026:GAU-AS:10897 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4932/2025 ABDUL KARIM AND ANR S/O- LATE ROIS ALI, R/O- DHARAKUNA, WARD NO. 2, KARIMGANJ MUNICIPAL BOARD, P.O. AND P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN- 788712. 2: PIYARA BEGUM D/O- LATE ROIS ALI W/O- ABDUL MUTLIB R/O- VILL.- ALONGJURI P.O. SILCHAR ROAD P.S. KARIMGANJ DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788713 AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF LONGAI ROAD (SARALKHA ROAD) P.O. SETTLEMENT ROAD P.S. KARIMGANJ DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES (FAMILY WELFARE) ASSAM SWASTHYA BHAWAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036. 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES CUM ADDITIONAL Page No.# 2/30 DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS KARIMGANJ OLD HOSPITAL ROAD DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710. 4:THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS KARIMGANJ MUNICIPAL BOARD MAIN ROAD KARIMGANJ DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710. 5:LILA BEGUM W/O LT. MOSTAN ALI D/O LT. ROIS ALI R/O NARIKHOLI P.O. LAKSHMIBAZAR P.S. AND DIST- SHIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-78870 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. O. Laskar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. D. Das, Sr. Advocate : Mr. D. Upamanyu, Standing Counsel : Ms. R. Deka, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 05.08.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : N/A Page No.# 3/30 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. O. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. D. Upamanyu, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. I have also heard Mr. B. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5. PREFACE: 2. Both the Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the communication dated 28.01.2022 as well as the subsequent communications dated 24.06.2022 which have been enclosed as Annexures 6, 7, and 8 to the writ petition whereby the Birth Certificates of both the Petitioners have been cancelled by the Respondent No.4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The case of the Petitioners herein is that the Petitioner No.1 is the son and the Petitioner No.2 is the daughter of one Late Rois Ali and Late Suran Bibi of Longai Road (Saralkha Lane), Karimganj. The Petitioner No.1 was born on 05.10.1996 and the Petitioner Page No.# 4/30 No.2 was born on 12.05.1991. In the year 2015 and more particularly on 09.06.2015 and 01.07.2015, the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 respectively were issued their Birth Certificates by the Respondent No.4. 4. A perusal of the said Birth Certificates reveal that insofar as the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, the date of issue of the said Birth Certificate is 09.06.2015 and the registration date is 15.11.2013. However, in the case of the Petitioner No.2, the date of registration of the said Birth Certificate is mentioned as 15.11.2013 and the signature of the Issuing Authority is 01.07.2015. 5. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioner No.1 was issued a communication by the Respondent no.4 on 28.01.2022 informing him about the cancellation of his Birth Certificate and further directed the Petitioner No.1 to return the said Birth Certificate. Subsequent thereto, vide two separate communications both dated 24.06.2022 were issued whereby both the Petitioners were informed about the cancellation of the Birth Certificate and directions were issued asking the Petitioners to submit the cancelled birth certificate before the Respondent No.4 on or before 28.06.2022. Page No.# 5/30 6. The Petitioners being aggrieved, filed a suit being Title Suit No.214/2022 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Sribhumi assailing the cancellation orders of their Birth Certificates by the impugned communications which were enclosed to the present proceedings as Annexures 6, 7 & 8. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 28(1) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Act of 1969’). It is under such circumstances, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. This Court duly takes note of that initially the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the only parties arrayed by the Petitioners. Subsequently, on an application filed by the Respondent No.5 as Applicant i.e. I.A.(Civil) No.171/2026, the Respondent No.5 was arrayed as a party to the present proceedings. 8. The records reveal that notice in the instant writ petition was issued on 27.08.2025. Even after a passage of almost 1 (one) year, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not cared to file their counter. 9. The Respondent No.5 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition. A perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition reveals that it is on the Page No.# 6/30 basis of the complaint being submitted by the Respondent No.5 and her mother Late Suran Bibi, the proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the Petitioners’ Birth Certificates. This aspect would be apparent from an undated communication issued by the Respondent No.5 and her mother to the Respondent No.3. A perusal of the said communication, which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.5 would show that the Respondent No.5 and her mother did not either contest the date of birth of the Petitioners or the place of birth. The challenge to the Birth Certificates issued to the Petitioners is on the ground that the names of the parents of the Petitioners have been wrongly inserted in their Birth Certificates. It was the contention of the Respondent No.5 and her mother in the said application that Late Rois Ali was not the father of the Petitioners. 10. On the basis of the said communication submitted by the Respondent No.5 and her mother, the Respondent No.3 issued a communication to the Deputy Commissioner cum District Registrar of Births and Deaths, Karimganj. The communication issued by the Respondent No.3 to the Respondent No.4 dated 30.06.2020 is of relevance inasmuch as the Respondent No.3 not only asked the Respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry as to whether there was a Page No.# 7/30 fraudulent entry as regards the name of the parents in the Birth Certificates of the Petitioners but also to enquire as regards the compliance to Section 13(3) of the Act of 1969. 11. The instant writ petition was listed before this Court on 03.08.2026 on which date, this Court fixed the matter today for final disposal. Today, when the matter was taken up, Mr. D. Upamanyu, the learned Standing counsel who represents the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that though the said Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not filed their affidavit-in-opposition however the Birth Certificates were cancelled after an enquiry was carried out by the Respondent No.4. In that regard, a set of documents were placed before this Court during the course of hearing which included the enquiry report. The documents are collectively kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. The documents so placed were: (A) The communication issued by the Respondent No.4 dated 24.06.2022 to the Petitioner No.2; (B) The communication dated 24.06.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the Petitioner No.1; (C) The forwarding letter issued by the Assistant Page No.# 8/30 Commissioner on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj dated 20.01.2022 enclosing the legal opinion; (D) The legal opinion of the Government Pleader, Karimganj dated 17.01.2022 wherein it was opined that the Birth Certificates should be cancelled; (E) The Birth Certificate of the Petitioner No.1; (F) The Birth Certificate of the Petitioner No.2; (G) The communication dated 28.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the Petitioner No.1 informing about the cancellation of his Birth Certificate; (H) The communication dated 28.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the Petitioner No.2 informing about the cancellation of her Birth Certificate; (I) The communication issued by the Respondent No.3 to the Respondent No.4 dated 16.06.2022 directing the Respondent No.4 to direct the Petitioners to hand over the cancelled Birth Certificates; and Page No.# 9/30 (J) The Enquiry Report dated 07.11.2020 made by the Respondent No 4. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 12. Mr. O. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the impugned communications of cancellation of the Birth Certificates of the Petitioners dated 28.01.2022 as well as 24.06.2022 are in violation to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as without giving the Petitioners an opportunity, the said Birth Certificates could not have been cancelled. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that from the stand so taken by the Respondent No.5, it appears that the Birth Certificates have not been challenged on the aspect pertaining to the Date of Birth of the Petitioners, but the Birth Certificates have been questioned by the Respondent No.5 on the question of the parentage of the Petitioners. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the question of parentage, if disputed, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have no jurisdiction or authority inasmuch as the said aspect can only be decided by the Civil Court. 13. Mr. D. Upamanyu, the learned Standing counsel appearing on Page No.# 10/30 behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have relied upon the documents which have been placed before this Court and kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. He submitted that there was an enquiry being conducted on the issue as to whether the Petitioners’ parents were Late Rois Ali and Late Suran Bibi. The learned Standing counsel further referring to the enquiry report submitted that notices were sent to Moni Bibi as well as the Petitioners to appear before the Respondent No.4 and to give their statements regarding the matter but they failed to do so. On 27.07.2020, the Petitioner No.1 submitted a petition along with some documents and stated that if any complain made against him by his sister i.e. the Respondent No.5 herein, or her husband, the same should be rejected as the matter is under adjudication in the competent Court of Law. On the basis thereof, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the Petitioners were aware of the said enquiry and the Petitioners were also granted an opportunity. 14. Mr. B. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5 submitted that a fraud was committed by the Petitioners by inserting the names of the parents of the Respondent No.5 in the Birth Certificates and on the basis thereof, the Petitioners are taking advantage. It is under such Page No.# 11/30 circumstances, the Respondent No.5 and her mother were compelled to submit a complaint before the Respondent No.3. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the Petitioners’ dates of birth were sometime in the year 1991 and 1996 and they were issued the Birth Certificates sometime in the year 2015 with the registration date of 15.11.2013. These certificates could not have been issued without the fulfillment of the requirement of Section 13 of the Act of 1969. 15. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the legislature have categorically mentioned as to what steps are required to be taken if there is a delay beyond one year from the occurrence of the birth or the death when there is a request for issuance of a Birth or Death Certificate. This aspect is very pertinent for the purpose of the present case inasmuch as, if there is a delay beyond one year, there is a requirement of an order made by the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or by the Executive Magistrate who would verify the correctness of the birth. The learned Senior counsel submitted that without the order of the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate, the Petitioners were issued these Birth Certificates and a fraud was committed by the Petitioners in concert and collusion with the officials of the Respondent No.4. He Page No.# 12/30 therefore submitted that the cancellation of the birth certificates vide the impugned communications which have been enclosed at Annexures 6, 7, and 8 need not be interfered with. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 16. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials on record. 17. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is relevant to take note of that the Petitioners though were born in the years 1991 and 1996 but their dates of birth were registered only on 15.11.2013 and the birth certificates were issued in the year 2015. 18. Section 13 of the Act of 1969 as it stood prior to the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023 (for short “the Amending Act of 2023”) is relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication inasmuch as the Birth Certificates were issued in the year 2015. 19. Section 13(1) of the Act of 1969 stipulated that any birth or death of which information was given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefor but within 30 (thirty) days of its occurrence shall be registered on payment of such fee as may Page No.# 13/30 be prescribed. 20. Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act of 1969 further stipulated that if the information is given after 30 (thirty) days of the occurrence of the birth or death as the case may be but before one year, the said aspect would be registered subject to the written permission of the prescribed Authority along with an affidavit made before a Notary Public or any other Officer authorized by the State Government. 21. Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of the Act of 1969 is of relevance inasmuch as any birth or death which had not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth and on payment of a prescribed fee. 22. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that the Petitioners admit that they were born in the years 1996 and 1991 and their Birth Certificates were issued in the year 2015 and as such, without orders of the Magistrate of the First Class, there could not have been registration of their date of birth by the Respondent No.4 and consequential issuance of Birth Certificates. Page No.# 14/30 23. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to peruse the enquiry report dated 07.11.2020 made by the Respondent No.4 wherein it is mentioned that the Birth Certificates were issued pursuant to the production of Court affidavit by the informant and the information was verified by the then Ward Commissioner of the concerned Ward and after accord of permission by the District Magistrate for Registration of Birth. Under such circumstances, the report dated 07.11.2020 shows compliance to Section 13(3) of the Act of 1969. 24. Let this Court now consider the most pertinent aspect as to whether the Respondent No.4 could be initiated an enquiry on the basis of the complaint submitted by the Respondent No.5 and her mother. The complaint submitted by the Respondent.5 and her mother is Annexure-1 to the affidavit of the Respondent No.5. A perusal of the said complaint would show that the Respondent No.5 and her mother Late Suran Bibi alleged that the Petitioners have by fraudulent means obtained the Birth Certificates in question by inserting Late Rois Ali as their father though the Petitioners were not the son and daughter of Late Rois Ali. 25. The Respondent No.3 on the basis of the said complaint requested the Respondent No.4 to carry out an enquiry. On the basis of the said direction, the Respondent No.4 initiated an Page No.# 15/30 enquiry and submitted a report on 07.11.2020 as would be apparent from the documents kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 26. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that the Respondent No.4 made enquiry on the aspect whether the Petitioners were the son and daughter of Late Rois Ali and submitted a report to the District Registrar without opining any decision. The question which arises is whether such enquiry into the parentage of the Petitioners by the Respondent No.4 was permissible as per the Act of 1969 in the facts of the present case. 27. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior counsel for the Respondent No.5 as well as the Standing counsel of the Respondent Authority that such power can be traced to Section 15 of the Act of 1969. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it was impermissible for the Respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry into the question of parentage and referred to the judgment of the learned Kerala High Court in the case of Aaa vs State of Kerala reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5445. 28. For the purpose of deciding the said question formulated Page No.# 16/30 hereinabove, it is relevant to take note of the scheme of the Act of 1969 as it stood in the year 2015 when the Birth Certificates were issued and further what is the present position of law after the Amending Act of 2023. 29. The Preamble of the Act of 1969 stipulates that the Act of 1969 was enacted for the regulation of registration of births and deaths and for matters connected thereto. The Statement of Objects and Reasons behind the enactment of the Act of 1969 was the necessity of adequate and accurate data for registration of births and deaths in the country for the Central Government to further its purposes of national planning, organizing public health, medical activities and developing family planning programmes. 30. Chapter II of the Act of 1969 deals with the Registration Establishment. There had been significant amendments made to in this Chapter by the Amending Act of 2023. Be that as it may, a perusal of Sections 3 to 7 of the Act of 1969 would show the hierarchical of powers conferred upon various authorities. In terms with Section 4 of the Act of 1969, the State Government would appoint a Chief Registrar for the State. The State Government would also appoint such other officers with such designations as it thinks fit for the purpose of discharging under the superintendence Page No.# 17/30 and direction of the Chief Registrar, such of his functions as he may, from time to time, authorize them to discharge. 31. Section 5 of the Act of 1969 empowers the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette divide the territory within the State into such registration divisions as it may think fit and prescribe different Rules for different registration divisions. 32. Section 6 of the Act of 1969 empowers the State Government to appoint District Registrars for each Revenue District and Additional District Registrars to assist them. 33. Section 7 of the Act of 1969 relates to the post of Registrar. The said Section 7 of the Act of 1969 as it stood prior to the Amending Act of 2023 being relevant is reproduced hereunder: “7. Registrars.— (1) The State Government may appoint a Registrar for each local area comprising the area within the jurisdiction of a municipality, panchayat or other local authority or any other area or a combination of any two or more of them: Provided that the State Government may appoint in the case of a municipality, panchayat, or other local authority, any officer or other employee thereof as a Registrar. (2) Every Registrar shall, without fee or reward, enter in the register Page No.# 18/30 maintained for the purpose all information given to him under section 8 or section 9 and shall also take steps to inform himself carefully of every birth and of every death which takes place in his jurisdiction and to ascertain and register the particulars required to be registered. (3) Every Registrar shall have an office in the local area for which he is appointed. (4) Every Registrar shall attend his office for the purpose of registering births and deaths on such days and at such hours as the Chief Registrar may direct and shall cause to be placed in some conspicuous place on or near the outer door of the office of the Registrar a board bearing, in the local language, his name with the addition of Registrar of Births and Deaths for the local area for which he is appointed, and the days and hours of his attendance. (5) The Registrar may, with the prior approval of the Chief Registrar, appoint Sub-Registrars and assign to them any or all of his powers and duties in relation to specified areas within his jurisdiction.” 34. It is relevant to take note of that by the Amending Act of 2023, Sub-Sections (2) and (5) of Section 7 of the Act of 1969 was amended and an Explanation was inserted. The amended Sub- Section (2) of the Section 7 of the Act of 1969 is relevant inasmuch as post the Amending Act, the Register maintained could be a physical copy or electronic records or otherwise. Further, it was made explicit that the entry in the register of all information given to the Registrar under Section 8 and Section 9 of the Act of 1969 Page No.# 19/30 should be in respect to births and deaths which had taken place within his jurisdiction. 35. Now, let this Court take note of what information is required to be provided to the Registrar and who is to provide such information. Prior to the Amending Act of 2023, the information to be provided under Section 8 of the Act of 1969 was such information, the particulars of which is required to be entered in the forms prescribed by the State Government under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1969. Post the Amending Act of 2023, in addition to the information to be provided of the particulars contained in the forms prescribed by the State Government, there is a requirement of providing the Aadhaar numbers of parents and informant, if available, in case of birth. The persons who are to provide the information are enlisted in the various Sub-Clauses of Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of the Act of 1969. It is noteworthy to mention that post the Amending Act, the various types of persons to provide the information in different circumstances have been enlarged. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention that the State of Assam had in exercise of powers conferred by Section 30 of the Act of 1969 framed the Assam Registration of Births and Page No.# 20/30 Deaths Rules, 1999 (for short “the Rules”). These Rules commenced w.e.f. 08.09.2000. In these Rules and more particularly Rule 5, the Forms etc. for giving information of births and deaths were mentioned. Form-1 relates to information as regards birth; Form-2 is as regards death and Form-3 is as regards still birth. A perusal of Form-1 would show that various types of information are required to be provided for registration of birth. It includes amongst others the date of Birth; Sex; Name of the Child (if not named to be kept blank); Name of the Father; Name of the Mother; Place of Birth; Religion; Father's Occupation; Mother's Occupation; Age of the mother at the time of birth; type of delivery; Method of delivery; birth weight (in Kgs) (if available) etc. 36. Therefore, from a conjoint reading of Section 8 of the Act of 1969 read with the Rule 5 of the Rules and Form-1 as prescribed, it is clear that various details are required to be provided by the informant which includes amongst others the name of the father and mother of the child. 37. Let this Court now take note of Section 12 of the Act of 1969 which stipulates that based upon the information provided, the Page No.# 21/30 Registrar shall after the completion of registration of birth or death provide the extracts of the prescribed particulars under his hand from the Register relating to such birth or death. The Amending Act of 2023 had substituted Section 12 of the Act of 1969 by inserting that the Registrar after completion of the registration of birth or death shall provide within 7 (seven) days a certificate extracted from the Register relating to birth and death in such form and manner as may be prescribed. The Birth Certificates in question were therefore issued in terms with Section 12 of the Act of 1969. 38. Section 15 of the Act of 1969 is relevant for the purpose of the instant case, as the impugned orders are made under the said provision. Section 15 of the Act of 1969 is reproduced herein below: “15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths.—If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.” Page No.# 22/30 39. The above quoted Section is with the heading correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. In other words, powers have been conferred upon the Registrar to correct or cancel an entry in the Register. This power is distinct from the power conferred under Section 12 of the Act of 1969 to issue a certificate of the extracts of the prescribed particulars. A further reading of Section 15 of the Act of 1969 would show when such power can be exercised. It has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that: Any entry of a birth or death in any Register kept by him under the Act of 1969 is (a) Erroneous in form or substance; or (b) Had been fraudulently or improperly made. It is further apposite to observe that upon being proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar, subject to the Rules framed by the State, the Registrar may (a) correct the error; or Page No.# 23/30 (b) cancel the entry by making a suitable entry in the margin, without alteration of the original entry and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of correction or cancellation. 40. Taking into consideration the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted by the Registrar under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 is spelt out in Rule 11 of the Rules, the said Rule 11 of the Rules is reproduced hereunder: “11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the registrar of births and deaths. (1) If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has ben made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or cancelling the entry) as provided in Section 15 and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths (2) In the case referred to in sub-rule (1) if the register is not in his possession the Registrar shall make a report to the District Registrar and obtain relevant records and after enquiring into the matter, if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, make the necessary correction with prior and express approval of the District Registrar. (3) Any such correction as mentioned in sub-rule (2) shall be countersigned by Page No.# 24/30 the District Registrar. (4) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by tow credible parsons having knowledge of the facts of the case. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), and sub-rule (4), the Registrar shall make report of any correction made therein giving necessary details to the District Registrar (6) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorised by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under Section 25 and on hearing from him take necessary action in the manner. (7) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under Section 8 or Section 9.” 41. From the above quoted Rule, it would show that in the case of clerical or formal error, the Registrar can enquire and after being satisfied, correct the error. However, in the case of fraudulent or improper entry, the Registrar upon being satisfied shall make a report by giving details to the officer authorised by the Chief Registrar and upon hearing from the said Officer, the Registrar shall act. Page No.# 25/30 42. The phrase “if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar” is of great relevance to analyse the powers of the Registrar to act in terms with Section 15 of the Act of 1969. The said phrase is a well recognized legislative tool used across various statutes thereby indicating conferment of quasi judicial functions on the named authority. It means that the party asserting the fact bears a burden of producing evidence/material and the authority on the basis of such material or evidence forms its own subjective satisfaction. 43. It is however apposite to observe that this quasi judicial function so conferred upon the Registrar should not be mistaken with the powers of inquisition/investigation which is usually performed by the police officer or commission of enquiry or even a Court exercising discovery. 44. Therefore, the power so conferred under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 upon the Registrar are to be exercised upon production of proof by way of evidence/materials before the Registrar by the person asserting the fraudulent and improper entry in the Register. 45. In the instant case, the materials on record would show that based upon the complaint submitted by the Respondent No.5 and her mother, the Respondent No.3 requested the Respondent No.4 Page No.# 26/30 vide the communication dated 30.06.2020 to look into the complaint and if necessary to carry out a detailed enquiry. The Respondent No.4 thereupon carried out a fact finding enquiry. In the fact finding enquiry, the Respondent No.4 found all the documentary evidence in favour of the Petitioners inasmuch as, all the documents i.e. Birth Reporting Form, Voters list of 2020, NRC Application, 2015; Elector Photo Identity issued on 18.02.2017, PAN Card, Bank Passbook of Petitioner No.1, Admit Cards, Registration Cards, School Certificates etc. It is also seen that the Respondent No.4 had taken certain statements from local people who stated otherwise. Based upon such statements, the report dated 07.11.2020 was prepared and submitted to the District Registrar. There is no decision or opinion of the Respondent No.4 in the Report. Under such circumstances, the Report would not show that the Respondent No.4 exercised its jurisdiction of arriving at any subjective satisfaction. 46. The records more particularly the documents kept on record and marked with the letter “X” would show that based upon the Report submitted by the Respondent No.4, a legal opinion was sought by the District Registrar from the Government Pleader, Karimganj. The Government Pleader opined that the Birth Certificates issued to the Petitioners were issued on false Page No.# 27/30 statements and representation, and advised that the Birth Certificates may be cancelled. This legal opinion was given on 17.01.2022. 47. The records further show that the legal opinion was forwarded to the Respondent No.4 by the Assistant Commissioner on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner on 20.01.2022. Subsequent to that, the impugned communications dated 28.01.2022 were issued. 48. In the backdrop of the above facts, it is absolutely clear that the jurisdiction vested upon the Respondent No.4 which is a quasi judicial function was not exercised by the Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 in the report submitted on 07.11.2020 did not opine that to his satisfaction it was proved that a fraud was committed. The Respondent No.4 only made a fact finding enquiry which was forwarded to the District Registrar without his opinion. Apart from the above, it also transpires from the records that the impugned communications were based upon a legal opinion. 49. It is well settled that when power is conferred upon an Authority, the power is to be exercised only by the Authority. The power conferred under Section 15 of the Act of 1969 is quasi judicial power based upon the satisfaction of the Registrar upon Page No.# 28/30 being proved. The said satisfaction cannot be substituted by a legal opinion. Additionally, there is no Speaking Order placed before this Court by the Respondent No.4 that he had exercised his quasi judicial function of arriving at a subjective satisfaction based upon the materials proved. 50. Under such circumstances, the impugned communications enclosed as Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to the writ petition cannot be sustained in law. 51. Let this Court look at the dispute from another angle i.e. whether the Respondent No.4 could have decided the disputes as regards parentage. Section 15 of the Act of 1969 as already analysed above empowers the Registrar to correct or cancel a registration on the satisfaction being accorded upon being proved that there is a clerical or formal error in the entry made in the Register. The said provision further empowers the Registrar to decide on the question of fraudulent or improper entries made in the Register. However, it is very relevant to observe that on the basis of the quasi judicial power so conferred, the Registrar cannot decide the question of parentage. It is the opinion of this Court that in the garb of deciding whether any fraudulent or improper entry was made in the Register, the Registrar cannot decide on the Page No.# 29/30 question of parentage which power is specifically reserved upon the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. It is also the opinion of this Court that while deciding the question of fraudulent or improper entry made in the Register, if the question of parentage is required to be decided primarily, the Registrar has to defer his decision to that of the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 52. In the instant case, the Registrar conducted an enquiry into the parentage of the Petitioners and submitted a report dated 17.11.2020. Thereupon, on the basis of the legal opinion dated 17.11.2020 which was forwarded to the Respondent No.4 vide the communication dated 20.01.2022, the Respondent No.4 cancelled the Birth Certificates of the Petitioners vide communications dated 28.01.2022. Such course of action was not permissible as the Registrar or even the Government Pleader could not have decided the parentage of the Petitioners and without such decision, it was not possible for the Respondent No.4 to decide as to whether it was a fraudulent or improper entry in the Register. CONCLUSION: 53. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: Page No.# 30/30 (i) The impugned communications dated 28.01.2022 as well as 24.06.2022 so issued by the Respondent No.4, which have been enclosed as Annexures 6, 7, and 8 to the writ petition are interfered with. Accordingly, the Birth Certificates issued to the Petitioners on 09.06.2015 and 01.07.2015 stands revived. (ii) The interference of this Court to the impugned communications dated 28.01.2022 as well as 24.06.2022 which have been enclosed as Annexures 6, 7, and 8 shall not preclude or prejudice the Respondent No.5 to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction seeking appropriate declaration as regards the parentage of the Petitioners, if so advised. It is also observed that if a Court of Civil Jurisdiction makes appropriate declarations, the present judgment would not come in the way of the Respondent No.4 to make necessary correction/cancellation of the Birth Certificates of the Petitioners. (iii) Writ petition stands allowed. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2026.08.19 11:03:44 +05'30'