Telangana High Court
WP/27527/2007 of Venigalla Rambabu Vs The State of A.P., Rep by its the Chief Registrar on 24 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27527 of 2007 24.12.2007 Between: Venigalla Rambabu … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Registrar (Births & Deaths), Department of Medical and Health (Vital Statistics), Hyderabad & another. … Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27527 of 2007
24.12.2007
Between:
Venigalla Rambabu
… Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Chief Registrar (Births & Deaths),Department of Medical and Health (Vital Statistics),Hyderabad & another.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Ramesh Babu Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set asideproceedings, dated 13.12.2007 issued by respondent No.2, wherebyhe rejected the request of the petitioner to issue date of birth certificatefor his son, by name, Venigalla Kranthi Chaitanya.
Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner hasdrawn my attention to orders dated 29.06.2007 passed in Writ PetitionNos. 13714 and 13684 of 2007, dated 21.06.2007 and 27.02.2007passed in Writ Petition Nos. 12972 of 2007 and 3739 of 2007, in whichthis Court considered the issue raised in the said writ petitions,namely, refusal to issue birth certificate on the ground that theapplication was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Rule 10 of Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 (forshort, ‘the Rules’). In all the said orders, it is held that respondent No.2ought to have considered the application on merits therein and enteredthe names of their children in the certificates after satisfying himself asto their identity, despite the fact that applications were filed beyond thetime limit of 15 years stipulated under Rule 10 of the Rules.
Having carefully perused the said orders and the avermentscontained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, I amsatisfied that the petitioner raised the issue, which is identical to theissues raised in the said writ petitions and that the said orderssquarely cover the issue raised in the present writ petition.
In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of in termsof the said orders with the direction that the same shall be read as partof this order.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36003of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
24.12.2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld