13.08.2026 Sayandeep Sl. No. 01 Ct. No. 03 WPA 17314 of 2025 Manoj Saha & anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & anr. Ms. Trisha Rakshit Ms. Aishwarya Datta …. For the petitioners Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta ….. for the KMC Dr. Siddhartha Goswami Mr. Tarun Kumar Poddar …. For the State 1. On 3rd August, 2026 this Court was pleased to pass the following order: - 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the municipal authorities to cancel the previous birth certificate bearing registration number 9494 which was issued in the year 2009 in favour of the petitioner no. 2. 2. The petitioner no. 1 claims to be the biological father of the petitioner no. 2. According to the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 was born on 27th February 2002 at Ramakrishna Sarada Mission Matri Bhavan. Consequent thereupon, the factum of birth was registered with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The same would corroborate from the birth certificate issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation bearing serial number 0021913. 3. It is the petitioner no.1‟s case that the wife of the petitioner no.1 had fallen critically ill and during the period of crisis, the original birth certificate of the petitioner no. 2 was inadvertently misplaced and could not be retrieved despite diligent efforts. The case as made out in paragraph 6 of the writ petition further proceeds on the premise that having regard to the same, the petitioner no. 1 had made a fresh application before the Kolkata Municipal Authorities for re- issaunce of the birth certificate and that due to an inadvertent typographical error, the year of birth of the petitioner no. 2 was incorrectly recorded in the subsequent birth certificate. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has placed before this Court not only the original voter identity card of the petitioner no. 2 but also the Income Tax Permanent Account Number card issued by the Income Tax Department. As would appear from the above, in both the aforesaid documents the petitioner no. 2‟s date of birth has been WPA 4858 of 2026 2 recorded as 27th February 2002, Gender-female. It is contended that the petitioner no. 1 had, further on the basis of the subsequent erroneous birth certificate issued by the municipality, applied for and had obtained a passport in the name of the petitioner no. 2. Such passport was issued on 1st July 2015 being passport no. NO.895663. The validity of the passport has since expired on 30th June 2020. While the petitioner no. 2 applied for reissuance of the passport, having regard to the aforesaid anomaly, the petitioner no. 2‟s application for reissuance of passport was rejected. 5. When the writ petition came up for consideration, this Court by order dated 17th February 2026, had directed the petitioners to place before this Court the original birth certificate issued by the Ramakrishna Sarada Mission Matri Bhavan or any other contemporaneous documents to substantiate the claim of the petitioners. 6. Pursuant to the above direction, the petitioners had placed before this Court, the discharge certificate issued in favour of the petitioner no. 1‟s wife which records that the patient „Rinku Saha‟ had delivered a female child on 27th February 2002 at 3.55 A.M. Other particulars of the child appears on such certificate. Copy of the aforesaid certificate issued by the Ramakrishna Sarada Mission Matri Bhavan as placed before this Court is retained with the file. Subsequently, the municipality has filed a report. In the said report, the following disclosures have been made. “Report on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation The answering respondents places the chronology of the events below in seriatim: i) The petitioners obtained the birth certificate of the petitioner no.2 from the concerned Municipal Authorities on 12.09.2002 wherein the date of Birth of the petitioner no. 2 is indicated as 27.02.2002, place of birth RKSM Matri Bhawan, Registration No. P-37901/3089, Date of registration 27.02.2002. ii) Subsequent thereto, the petitioners approached the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sealdah, by taking out an application being registered as Misc. Application no. MC 1439/2009. The concerned Ld. Magistrate upon enquiry and being satisfied as to the correctness of the Date of birth of Ishika Saha, daughter of Manoj Saha and Rinku Saha to be 27.02.2003, accordingly the Ld. Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to direct the Registrar of Birth of KMC to record the Date of Birth of Ishika Saha as 27.02.2003. Copy of the order dated 26.09.2009 passed by Ld. Judicial Magisrate, (1st Class), 5th Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas, is annexed hereto and marked with letter-A iii) Accordingly, pursuant to the aforesaid direction, fresh birth certificate was issued by the WPA 4858 of 2026 3 Munciiapl authorities recording the date of Birth of the petitioner no. 2 as 27.02.2003, having its old Registration no. 10617 and Online Birth Registration No. as I/16/2009/09494 Registration date 29.06.2009. Based upon the said birth certificate, as mentioned in the writ application, the petitioner no. 2 has obtained her passport in the year 2015. Copy of the said Birth Report is annexed hereto and marked with letter-B” 7. Subsequent to the aforesaid disclosure made by the municipal authorities, this Court by order dated 23rd March 2026 had directed the petitioners‟ advocate to take appropriate instructions. In furtherance thereto, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners which has been affirmed by the petitioner no. 1 on 31st March 2026. In such affidavit in paragraph 4, the petitioner no. 1 has admitted the order passed by Learned First Class Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah on 26th June 2009. According to him, this fact, he had lost sight of due to passage of time. He had further disclosed that the petitioner no. 2 had completed her ICSC (Class X), ISC (Class XII) from M.P.Birla Foundation School, Kolkata and has also successfully completed her B. Tech from Vellor Institute of Technology, Andhra Pradesh. All the educational documents clearly and unequivocally reflect the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 as 27th February 2002. In light of the above disclosure, this Court had directed the State to verify the documents disclosed by the petitioners by way of the supplementary affidavit. 8. Pursuant to the above direction, though a report has been filed by the Officer-in-charge of Haridevpur Police Station. Report reveals that the concerned officer in charge had recorded that there are no criminal records found against the petitioner no. 2 and that though, a requisition has also been made by the concerned officer in charge to the local police station where the petitioner no. 2 at present resides, he is yet to receive any information in that regard. 9. From a reading of the report, it transpires that the officer in charge of the concerned police station had failed to appreciate the purport of the order passed by this Court. 10. Be that as it may, having regard to the disclosure made and there being no challenge to the documents disclosed in the supplementary affidavit, it is apparent and clear that the petitioner no. 2‟s date of birth was altered at the instance of the petitioner no. 1 on the basis of a voluntary disclosure made by the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 2 may not have been responsible for the same at least at the tender age of 7 years when the above alteration was sought for. The municipality has already acknowledged the fact that the birth certificate of the petitioner no. 2 which was registered on 27th February 2002 and issued on 12th September 2002 bearing registration serial no. 0021913 is genuine. The municipality has also provided a justification in issuing the subsequent birth certificate with a different date of birth. WPA 4858 of 2026 4 11. I find that petitioner no. 1 is majorly instrumental in seeking alternation of the date of birth and in obtaining the subsequent birth certificate. For such fault, however, the petitioner no.2 cannot be made to suffer, especially when the correction was made at a point of time when she was a minor and of tender age. Accordingly, I direct the municipality to cancel the subsequent erroneous birth certificate issued in favour of the petitioner no. 2. The municipality is also directed to appropriately correct its records. 12. This Court, however, cannot ignore the conduct of the petitioner no. 1 and accordingly, directs the petitioner no. 1 who claims to be a teacher by profession (teaches mathematics), to serve the society with charitable work for his inappropriate conduct to say the least. 13. Accordingly, an undertaking shall be filed before this Court by the petitioner no. 1, undertaking that he shall impart remuneration free education (i.e., teach mathematics) to the needy students of class 6 to 10 (minimum 30 in number) for the balance of the entire academic session 2026-27, and shall provide the particulars and details of such students to the municipal authorities. For the said purpose he shall publish both in print media and in local daily an invitation for imparting education to needy students (teach mathematics from his coaching class). Subject to compliance of the above this Court does not propose any further action at this stage. 14. Before I part, I must note that the municipality ought to have been more careful in this matter, especially before issuing the subsequent birth certificate, appropriate verification and a thorough search ought to have been conducted. The erring officials must be warned and sensitized. 15. Let this matter be listed as “to be mentioned” on 12th August 2026 for the petitioner no. 1 to submit the aforesaid undertaking. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 3rd August, 2026, the undertaking filed by the petitioner No. 1 in Court today is taken on record. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid and noting that the issue contained in the writ petition has been dealt on merits with a specific direction on the municipal authorities to take further steps, nothing survives in the writ petition. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)