IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3490 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SOMINI, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O. PRASAD, PRASADALAYAM, VELIYANADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. BY M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 3490 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P6 order issued by the respondent Registrar of Births and Deaths, Alappuzha Municipality. Ext.P6 order is passed pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment of this court. Under Ext.P5 this court had clearly observed that a conjoined reading of Ext.P5 circular of the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths No.B1- 2815/07 dated 20-3-2007 and the subsequent circular No.B1-2815/07 dated 7-11-2007 will show that the Registrar is competent to make corrections sought for. The correction sought for in this case was in respect of the name of the petitioner's baby girl whose correct name according to the petitioner is Vismaya Prasad. Petitioner's case is that it was the grandfather, an old man who furnished information to the respondent regarding the name of the child. That information was not correct. The name of the child was Vismaya Prasad. The grandfather by mistake gave the name of the child as Adini.S. This was a mistake which could have been corrected, according to him, under section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969. It was after hearing the Government Pleader also that I passed Ext.P5 judgment incorporating the findings as already indicated. I had also indicated WP(C)N0.3490/08 -2- that the request of the petitioner is a bona fide one. Now under Ext.P6 it is seen that the Registrar has declined the petitioner's request referring to sections 14 and 15 of the Registration Act. It is obvious that the Registrar has not gone through Ext.P5 judgment. I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by relegating the petitioner once again to the Registrar. I quash Ext.P6 and direct the respondent to correct the name of the petitioner's baby daughter as “Vismaya Prasad” on the register of births maintained in his office and issue certified extract of the same to the petitioner. Respondent will ensure compliance of the above directions at the earliest, at any rate, within three weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed as above. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/11208 WP(C)N0.3490/08 -3-