IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32900 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LOUIS GIJU, S/O. GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS, VALIAKATTUNKAL, GINI NIVAS, VETTAKKAL.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, PATTANAKKAD.(SECRETARY, PATTANAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATTANAKKAD.P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688531.) ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R1 SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, FOR R1 SMT.LEENA MURALI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32900 of 2010 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BAPTISM CERTIFICATE DATED 24/10/2010 ISSUED BY ST.MARY'S FORANE CHURCH, THANKY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 13/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/07/2010 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.68413/RD-3/2009/LSGD DATED 21/01/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.32900/2010-J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order whereby the application for correction of his name in the birth register has been rejected relying upon a circular dated 21/01/2010 of the Government. The objection raised by the Panchayat is that correction can be made only once that too before the person joins the school. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Shipna Jose v. Registrar [2010 (2) KLT 978] wherein the clause (1) of the Circular (Ext.P9 produced herein) came up for consideration of this Court. This Court therein after analysing the provisions of the Circular and the dictum laid down in Girijan v. Registrar of Births and Deaths [2003 (2) KLT 22] in paragraph (8) held as follows:- “8. A reading of the circular dated 21.1.2010 shows that reliance is placed therein on the decision reported in Girijan's case (2003 (2) KLT 22) to make a stipulation that a correction can be made only once and that too, before the child joins a school. A reading of the above judgment shows that actually this Court has not W.P.(C). No.32900/2010 -:2:- ordered any such restriction as regards correction of the entries are concerned. That was a case where actually the correction was sought before the child wanted to join a particular school. The application was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for change of name in the birth register. While considering the pleas raised by the parents, this Court only observed that the child is born only on 2.3.1999 and it has not reached the age to go to school to have the name entered in the school record. If the parents want to change the name of the child, they are free to do the same. Probably, one sentence in the heading of the head note of the said reported judgment has been wrongly relied upon while issuing the circular dated 21.1.2010. Actually, that was not the real dictum laid down by this Court. The legal position has now been laid down in the later decision in Malavika's case (Supra) by the Division Bench.” Therefore, the embargo provided under the Circular that the application for correction can be entertained only once that too before the person joins the school cannot be W.P.(C). No.32900/2010 -:3:- accepted. The procedure provided under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules will have to be gone into. 3. The writ petition is allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's real name is Louis Giju and the name appearing in the birth register is that of Johny, who had reported the birth. The petitioner is relying upon Exts.P1 to P7 in proof of his real name. Therefore, the respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders with regard to the correction sought for by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms