1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16-12-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.14402 of 2011 Habib .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Executive Officer, Solavandan Panchayat, Madurai District. 2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Solavandan,Madurai District. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 16.11.2011 and consequently directing the respondents to issue fresh birth certificate to the petitioner's son namely Mohammed Idreez. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi For respondents : Mr.M.Alagadhevan, Spl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition, seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 16.11.2011 and consequently directing the respondents to issue fresh birth certificate to the petitioner's son viz.,Mohammed Idreez. 2. Heard Mr.S.Muniyandi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.M.Alagadhevan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioner got married one Mumtaj Begam and out of the wedlock three children were born to them. Their second son by name Mohammed Idreez was born on 06.09.1990 in the Government Hospital at Solavandan. He registered the birth of his second son with the respondent and a birth certificate was issued. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the said certificate his name has been wrongly shown as Habib Mohammed instead of Habib. According to the petitioner, seeking correction of his name he made a representation to the first respondent on 16.11.2011. But the same has not been considered so far. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not seeking an alteration of his name, for whatever reasons. He is only seeking a correction. The correction is sought on account of the fact that his name has been wrongly mentioned in the birth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 certificate. 6. The above contingency is covered by Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000. 7. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:- “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.” 8. Rule 11 of the Rules reads as follows:- “11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths under Section 15.- (1) if it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been 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 canceling the entry) as provided in Section 15 and shall in the case of local authorities specified in column (1) of the Table below, send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the officer specified in column (2) thereof. TABLE Local Authorities (1) Officers (2) Village Panchayat Village Panchayat President Town Panchayat Executive Officer Cantonment Executive Officer Municipality Commissioner Corporation Commissioner Neyveli Lignite Corporation Chief Health Officer (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 officer specified in the Table in sub-rule (1) and call for the relevant register and after enquiring into the matter, if he is satisfied that such error has been made make necessary correction. (3) Any such correction as mentioned in sub-rule (2) shall be countersigned by the officer specified in the Table in sub- rule (1) in this behalf when the register is received from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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 two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (4), the Registrar shall make a report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the officer specified in the Table in sub-rule (1). (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 matter. (7) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation thereof should he sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under Section 8 or Section 9.” 8. A reading of Section 15 would show that a correction is possible under three contingencies, namely,  (i) Where an entry is found to be erroneous in form or substance;  (ii) Where an entry has been fraudulently made; and  (iii) Where an entry is made improperly. 9. The case on hand may fall under the third category. The third category of cases is covered by Rule 15(6). It may be even be covered under Rule 15(4). In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondent that there is no provision in the statute or the Rules is incorrect. 10.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to examine the request of the petitioner in the light of the above statutory provisions and take appropriate action within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR(CO) /TRUE COPY/ mpk SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Executive Officer, Solavandan Panchayat,Madurai District. 2.The Sub Registrar,Sub Registrar Office, Solavandan,Madurai District. SB:30/12/2011 3P 3C W.P.(MD)No.14402 of 2011 16-12-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/