- (1.) This is a writ application challenging the order passed by the Chief Municipal Health Officer, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 2 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to record the date of birth by giving effect to the order passed by the learned 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata in Misc. Case No. 225 of 2005 on 11th August, 2005. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of the order impugned which is as under: "Now it appears that the petitioner Dr. Bratindra Nath Mukhopadhyay has applied for issuance of his birth certificate in his favour after lapse of about sixty one years from the date of his birth, as alleged. But during the long span of 61 years no efforts have been taken to cause recording of his alleged the date of birth in the Register of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. During the hearing the representative of the petitioner was asked to produce a xerox copy of the physician's certificate relating to the date of birth of the petitioner which was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Kolkata, which was an important document for evidencing about the event of birth of Dr. B.N. Mukhopadhyay on the date as alleged, but he failed to produce of such document or any other cogent documents in order to establish about the date of birth Dr. Bratindra Nath Mukhopadhyay as alleged. Under the compelling circumstances, I am not in a position to issue the birth certificate of the petitioner. As such, the prayer of the petitioner Dr. Bratindra Nath Mukhopadhyay is considered and rejected. Chief Mpl. Health Officer The Kol. Mpl. Corpn."
(2.) Earlier, on 28th December, 2005 the petitioner applied to get his date of birth registered in the records of the Corporation. In support of his prayer the petitioner produced the order passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the Registrar, Birth and Death of the Corporation was directed to register the name and date of birth of the petitioner. However, as the respondents neglected to record the date of birth, the petitioner moved a writ application being WP No. 140 of 2006 complaining inaction on the part of the authorities. The said writ application was taken up for hearing on 10th May, 2006. After hearing the parties, the writ application was disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the prayer of the petitioner and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(3.) In compliance of the said order the respondent No. 2 considered the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by his order rejected the prayer of the petitioner to record the date of birth of the petitioner and to grant birth certificate.;