We have given our anxious thought to the entire matter. We are of the considered opinion that a bona fide mistake cannot be permitted to stand in the way of substantial justice. It is accepted by all concerned that Simarjeet had been adopted by her maternal uncle and aunt. It is also accepted by all the parties that Gurmit Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur are one and the same person i.e. the mother of Simarjeet. She is the real sister of the adopted father and the Special Power of Attorney Shivraj Singh Sidhu. The formalities for adoption have been completed. The adoption deed has been duly registered. Once the adoption deed has been registered, respondent-Board has no jurisdiction to doubt the authenticity of the same. It was, therefore, incumbent on the respondent-Board to issue the necessary clarification in the record of Simarjeet. We are of the considered opinion that a purely family matter has been unnecessarily complicated by respondent- Board. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.
2. The eldest daughter of the petitioner, Simarjeet born on 10.12.1989, has been legally adopted by Balraj Sidhu and his wife Charanjeet Kaur, the maternal uncle and aunt of the adopted child. They are permanently residing in Canada.They have adopted her out of love and affection as they have only two sons and no daughter. The adoption deed was duly executed on 17.6.2002 (Annexure P-2) through their Special Power of Attorney, Shivraj Singh Sidhu. He had been given the Special Power of Attorney dated 29.5.2002 (Annexure P-3), by the adoptive parents. After the adoption procedure was completed, the fact of the adoption was published in a newspaper on 21.6.2002. In November, 2002, the petitioner approached the Principal of Government High School, Jeeda (Bathinda) for changing the name of the parents of Simarjeet in the School record. They were directed to approach the Office of District Education Officer (Schools) Bathinda-respondent No.3 for the necessary order. For quite sometime, the petitioner alongwith Shivraj Singh Sidhu approached the different Officers for the necessary orders for change of name of the parents, but none were issued. On enquiries having been made from the Punjab School Education Board (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Board"), the petitioner was informed that the papers are being processed. The petitioner thereafter met the Law Officer of the respondent-Board and explained the whole case to him. The petitioner also showed the Law Officer the file containing the adoption deed as well as the Special Power of Attorney and other relevant papers. After examining the same, the Law Officer assured the petitioner that the necessary correction will be made and a new Certificate issued very shortly. When nothing was heard, the petitioner again visited the respondent-Board in the month of February, 2004. He pleaded the Law Officer to get the matter resolved at the earliest as the adoptive parents had already put in the papers for the migration of Simarjeet. She was likely to be called for interview by the concerned embassy at any time. The petitioner was informed by the Law Officer that the case is almost finalised and within a few days, the decision will be communicated. Ultimately, on 16.3.2003, a letter (Annexure P-6) was delivered to Shivraj Singh Sidhu from respondent No.l. He was informed as follows:-
"With regard to the application dated 9.1.2004 regarding adoption, you are hereby informed that the adoption is not acceptable Under Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956."
3. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid order in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 16.3.2003 (Annexure P-6). He also prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the necessary orders with regard to the correction to be made in the requisite certificate at the earliest.
4. The respondents have filed the written statement.
5. In the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 3, it is stated that Simarjeet was a regular student of Class VIII in Government High School Jeeda (Bathinda). She appeared in the Middle Standard Examination in the year 2002-2003 conducted by respondent-Board. The examination was held in 2003. It is further stated that the necessary correction had been sanctioned on 14.2.2003. However, the Head-Mistress of the School had already sent the admission form to the respondent-Board. Therefore, no change could be made by the Head Mistress.
6. In the reply filed by the respondent-Board, it is stated that the claim of the petitioner was rejected because the name of the mother of Simarjeet mentioned in the adoption deed is different from the name mentioned in the admission and withdrawal register of the School. In the School record, the name of Simarjet's mother is given as Rajwinder Kaur. In the adoption deed executed on 17.6.2002, the name of her mother has been mentioned as Gurmeet Kaur Dhillon. Consequently, the request of the petitioner has been declined.
7. In the short reply filed by respondent No.4, it is stated that respondent No.4 is the elder brother of Balraj Singh Sidhu who has adopted the daughter of the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner, Ranjit Singh Dhillon is married to their sister Gurmit Kaur. After marriage, her name was changed by her in-laws to Rajwinder Kaur as per custom in Jat families. The mistake occurred only when the adoptive father, who is settled in Canada, sent a Special Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.4. By mistake, the original name of the mother of Simarjet had been mentioned.
8. The petitioner has filed a replication, and attached alongwith it Annexure P-8 which is a certificate issued by the Principal of Government High Court, Jeeda dated 27.4.2004. In this certificate, it has been clearly stated that Simarjeet daughter of Ranjit Singh/Rajwinder Kaur had taken admission in the School in July, 2002. She had been adopted by her Uncle (Mama), Shri Balraj Sidhu and aunt (Mami), Smt. Charanjit Kaur Sidhu. It has been certified that the name of the mother of the girl is Gurmit Kaur daughter of Jarnail Singh, but after marriage her name was changed to Rajwinder Kaur. As such the name of the mother was written as "Rajwinder Kaur". However, as per the paper sent by the uncle, Balraj Sidhu, the name of his sister is given as Gurmit Kaur. It is, therefore, clarified that Rajwinder Kaur and Gurmit Kaur are one and the same person.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the entire matter. We are of the considered opinion that a bona fide mistake cannot be permitted to stand in the way of substantial justice. It is accepted by all concerned that Simarjeet had been adopted by her maternal uncle and aunt. It is also accepted by all the parties that Gurmit Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur are one and the same person i.e. the mother of Simarjeet. She is the real sister of the adopted father and the Special Power of Attorney Shivraj Singh Sidhu. The formalities for adoption have been completed. The adoption deed has been duly registered. Once the adoption deed has been registered, respondent-Board has no jurisdiction to doubt the authenticity of the same. It was, therefore, incumbent on the respondent-Board to issue the necessary clarification in the record of Simarjeet. We are of the considered opinion that a purely family matter has been unnecessarily complicated by respondent- Board. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed as prayed. The impugned letter dated 16.3.2003 (Annexure P-6) is quashed. The respondents are directed to make the necessary corrections in the record and to issue the necessary certificate to the petitioner within a period of two weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
Print Page
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh Dhillon vs Punjab School Education Board And ... on 19 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 P H 382, (2004) 138 PLR 501
1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage.2. The eldest daughter of the petitioner, Simarjeet born on 10.12.1989, has been legally adopted by Balraj Sidhu and his wife Charanjeet Kaur, the maternal uncle and aunt of the adopted child. They are permanently residing in Canada.They have adopted her out of love and affection as they have only two sons and no daughter. The adoption deed was duly executed on 17.6.2002 (Annexure P-2) through their Special Power of Attorney, Shivraj Singh Sidhu. He had been given the Special Power of Attorney dated 29.5.2002 (Annexure P-3), by the adoptive parents. After the adoption procedure was completed, the fact of the adoption was published in a newspaper on 21.6.2002. In November, 2002, the petitioner approached the Principal of Government High School, Jeeda (Bathinda) for changing the name of the parents of Simarjeet in the School record. They were directed to approach the Office of District Education Officer (Schools) Bathinda-respondent No.3 for the necessary order. For quite sometime, the petitioner alongwith Shivraj Singh Sidhu approached the different Officers for the necessary orders for change of name of the parents, but none were issued. On enquiries having been made from the Punjab School Education Board (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Board"), the petitioner was informed that the papers are being processed. The petitioner thereafter met the Law Officer of the respondent-Board and explained the whole case to him. The petitioner also showed the Law Officer the file containing the adoption deed as well as the Special Power of Attorney and other relevant papers. After examining the same, the Law Officer assured the petitioner that the necessary correction will be made and a new Certificate issued very shortly. When nothing was heard, the petitioner again visited the respondent-Board in the month of February, 2004. He pleaded the Law Officer to get the matter resolved at the earliest as the adoptive parents had already put in the papers for the migration of Simarjeet. She was likely to be called for interview by the concerned embassy at any time. The petitioner was informed by the Law Officer that the case is almost finalised and within a few days, the decision will be communicated. Ultimately, on 16.3.2003, a letter (Annexure P-6) was delivered to Shivraj Singh Sidhu from respondent No.l. He was informed as follows:-
"With regard to the application dated 9.1.2004 regarding adoption, you are hereby informed that the adoption is not acceptable Under Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956."
3. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid order in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 16.3.2003 (Annexure P-6). He also prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue the necessary orders with regard to the correction to be made in the requisite certificate at the earliest.
4. The respondents have filed the written statement.
5. In the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 3, it is stated that Simarjeet was a regular student of Class VIII in Government High School Jeeda (Bathinda). She appeared in the Middle Standard Examination in the year 2002-2003 conducted by respondent-Board. The examination was held in 2003. It is further stated that the necessary correction had been sanctioned on 14.2.2003. However, the Head-Mistress of the School had already sent the admission form to the respondent-Board. Therefore, no change could be made by the Head Mistress.
6. In the reply filed by the respondent-Board, it is stated that the claim of the petitioner was rejected because the name of the mother of Simarjeet mentioned in the adoption deed is different from the name mentioned in the admission and withdrawal register of the School. In the School record, the name of Simarjet's mother is given as Rajwinder Kaur. In the adoption deed executed on 17.6.2002, the name of her mother has been mentioned as Gurmeet Kaur Dhillon. Consequently, the request of the petitioner has been declined.
7. In the short reply filed by respondent No.4, it is stated that respondent No.4 is the elder brother of Balraj Singh Sidhu who has adopted the daughter of the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner, Ranjit Singh Dhillon is married to their sister Gurmit Kaur. After marriage, her name was changed by her in-laws to Rajwinder Kaur as per custom in Jat families. The mistake occurred only when the adoptive father, who is settled in Canada, sent a Special Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.4. By mistake, the original name of the mother of Simarjet had been mentioned.
8. The petitioner has filed a replication, and attached alongwith it Annexure P-8 which is a certificate issued by the Principal of Government High Court, Jeeda dated 27.4.2004. In this certificate, it has been clearly stated that Simarjeet daughter of Ranjit Singh/Rajwinder Kaur had taken admission in the School in July, 2002. She had been adopted by her Uncle (Mama), Shri Balraj Sidhu and aunt (Mami), Smt. Charanjit Kaur Sidhu. It has been certified that the name of the mother of the girl is Gurmit Kaur daughter of Jarnail Singh, but after marriage her name was changed to Rajwinder Kaur. As such the name of the mother was written as "Rajwinder Kaur". However, as per the paper sent by the uncle, Balraj Sidhu, the name of his sister is given as Gurmit Kaur. It is, therefore, clarified that Rajwinder Kaur and Gurmit Kaur are one and the same person.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the entire matter. We are of the considered opinion that a bona fide mistake cannot be permitted to stand in the way of substantial justice. It is accepted by all concerned that Simarjeet had been adopted by her maternal uncle and aunt. It is also accepted by all the parties that Gurmit Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur are one and the same person i.e. the mother of Simarjeet. She is the real sister of the adopted father and the Special Power of Attorney Shivraj Singh Sidhu. The formalities for adoption have been completed. The adoption deed has been duly registered. Once the adoption deed has been registered, respondent-Board has no jurisdiction to doubt the authenticity of the same. It was, therefore, incumbent on the respondent-Board to issue the necessary clarification in the record of Simarjeet. We are of the considered opinion that a purely family matter has been unnecessarily complicated by respondent- Board. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed as prayed. The impugned letter dated 16.3.2003 (Annexure P-6) is quashed. The respondents are directed to make the necessary corrections in the record and to issue the necessary certificate to the petitioner within a period of two weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment