IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2632 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SANTHOSH MICHAEL.M, S/O.MICHAEL, AGED 30 YEARS, MOONNANAPALLIL HOUSE, KAYALAMPARA P.O., CHEMPERI VIA., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI MR.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, ERUVESSY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHEMPERI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MANU V. R1 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE MECHERIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2632/2009-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 29/05/1978 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/01/2009 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.2632 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner was born in Chemperi Vimala Mission Hospital within the jurisdiction of Eruvessy Grama Panchayat. His parents are residents within the limits of Naduvil Panchayat. Petitioner's birth was registered in the register maintained by Eruvessy Grama Panchayat. His name was recorded as 'Joseph'. He wanted his name to be rectified as 'Santhosh Michael M'. That application has been rejected as per the impugned Ext.P4. 2.While the petitioner contends that Joseph was his pet name and his name, as evidenced by his school records, is Santhosh Michael M., the impugned order has been issued stating, among other things, that the statement issued by the Naduvil Grama Panchayat showing the order of birth of the members of the family, the petitioner's name is shown as Joseph and that a name once included cannot be deleted. WPC.2632/08 Page numbers 3.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given an opportunity for pre-decisional hearing in relation to the proceedings that culminated in Ext.P4. Ext.P5 circular issued by the Panchayat Director makes hearing obligatory. It also states that the power to rectify the name by changing pet name to the actual name is permissible at the level of the Registrar. In Sivanandan v. Registrar of Births and Deaths [2007(3) KLT 721], it was held that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 provides for correction and cancellation of the entry in the register and that the provision in Rule 11 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 does not occupy the entire sweep of the power conferred by Section 15 of the aforesaid Act and hence, on the Registrar being satisfied that any entry in the register is erroneous in form and substance, he would be empowered to correct it notwithstanding that it is not merely a clerical error that may fall within rule 11 of the Rules. It was noticed by this Court that in the absence of any guidelines beng issued by way of preliminary of subordinate legislation, the Registrar, being a WPC.2632/08 Page numbers statutory and public authority, is bound to act in terms of justice, equity and good conscience and to follow the principles of natural justice and other recognised canons for the exercise of statutory power. This, therefore, obliges the Registrar to hear the petitioner and also to make such legal inquiry as may be necessary to conclude whether the request of the applicant for change of name in the register is false. If it is found to be not false, nothing should stand in the way of the Registrar making correction in the register, particularly when conflict among different documents relating to a person, an Indian citizen, would only visit him with adverse civil consequences even relatable to his movement outside the territory of India, which should be avoided. 4.For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to take up the application of the petitioner and decide on it de novo in the light of what is stated above, after conducting due inquiry regarding the identity of the petitioner and also after giving him adequate WPC.2632/08 Page numbers opportunity of being heard. Let this be done within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.26/6.