IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 19267 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- EMMANUEL SHAJI, S/O.SHAJI,AGED 7 YEARS, (MINOR),REP.BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SHAJI, S/O.CHACKO,AGED 43 YEARS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.A.X.VARGHESE MR.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KOCHI CORPORATION ,REP.BY SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION,KOCHI 682 011. 2. THE REGISTRAR(BIRTH-DEATH),MATTANCHERRY HEALTH DEPARTMENT,KOCHI CORPORATION 682 011. ADV. MR.DILEESH JOHN,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19267 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: RECEIPT. EXT.P2: REPRESENTATION DTD. 28.5.2010. EXT.P3: APPLICATION FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATE. EXT.P4: ORDER DTD. 6.8.2010. EXT.P5: REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P6: INFORMATION DTD. 7.1.2011. EXT.P7: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEAD MASTER. EXT.P8: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ST.MARY'S CHURCH, NEDIASALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: GOVT.ORDER NO.B1-20741/2009 DTD. 8.12.2010. ------- // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.19267 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 communication and for a direction commanding the respondents to issue a Birth Certificate to the petitioner in the name of Emmanuel Shaji. 2. The petitioner is a minor represented by his father. The petitioner was born out of the wedlock between Shaji and Mini on 16.9.2003 at Government Hospital, Fort Kochi. The petitioner submits that in the year 2009, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application for getting Birth Certificate of the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the application stating that the birth certificate was already issued to the petitioner in the name of Athul Antony. The petitioner submits that the parents of the petitioner hitherto during the said period not received the Birth Certificate. By order dated 6.8.2010 the 2nd respondent intimated the mother of the petitioner that as per file No.2650/2007, on 3.5.2007, a birth certificate was issued to the child born to the couples in the name ::2:: W.P.(C).No.19267 Of 2011 of Athul Antony. Ext.P4 is the said order. On 28.5.2010, the mother of the petitioner submitted a representation requesting the 2nd respondent to issue a birth certificate to the petitioner in the name of Emmanuel Shaji. Ext.P2 is the copy of the representation dated 28.5.2010 and Ext.P3 is the copy of the application for birth certificate. 3. The petitioner is studying in III standard. Ext.P7 is the true copy of the certificate issued by the Headmaster. In Ext.P7 it is certified that Emmanuel Shaji S/o. Shaji and Mini Shaji is studying in III standard in St.Mary's U.P.School, Nediasala and his date of birth is 16.9.2003. The petitioner submits that the Baptism of the petitioner was ceremonized on 7.11.2003 in the name Emmanuel. Therefore, the petitioner submits that during 2003 the petitioner’s name was recorded as Emmanuel Shaji so that the contention of the 2nd respondent that already a birth certificate was issued to the petitioner in the name of Athul Antony is not sustainable. Ext.P8 is the copy of the certificate issued by the St.Mary's Church, Nediasala. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.19267 Of 2011 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Cochin Corporation, it is stated inter alia that the petitioner was born in the wedlock of Shaji & Mini Shaji on 16.9.2003, that on 3.5.2007 the parents of the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of a birth certificate, that a person named Sunil Kumar received the birth certificate on 4.5.2007 in the name of Athul Antony and the said fact was entered in the register book kept in Cochin Corporation, Mattanchery Regional Office. It is admitted that the mother of the petitioner submitted an application for getting birth certificate of the petitioner in the name of Emmanuel Shaji. In the statement it is stated that on verification it was found that the birth certificate was already issued in the name of Athul Antony and the said communication was issued to the parents. It is also admitted that the parents applied for birth certificate in 2009 and at that time the petitioner already joined in a school and the Registrar was helpless to issue a birth certificate. The Corporation is of the view that the name of the child as entered in the birth certificate is governed by the circular issued by the Government dated 8.12.2010 produced and ::4:: W.P.(C).No.19267 Of 2011 marked as Ext.R1. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, allows the Registrar to correct the wrong entries made in the birth register. The 1st respondent has the authority to correct an improper entry made in the birth register and corresponding entry in the birth certificate. 6. This Court had occasion to consider similar question in the decision reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar (2010 (2) KLT 978). This Court considered similar questions and held that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 allows correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths, that the legal position has now been laid down in the later decision by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika (2009 (4) KLT 714). The Division Bench after considering various aspects laid won the law which reads as follows: “The law does not contemplate a person to have a wrong name in the register or a mistaken identity in the register or to have wrong particulars regarding the ::5:: W.P.(C).No.19267 Of 2011 date, place etc. in the register of birth or death. It is also to be noted that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not create or extinguish any right; the Act is intended only to regulate the process and procedures of registration of births and deaths and the correction of any such entry. Once the Act permits such correction either in form or substance, the Rules are intended only to regulate the procedure and not to prohibit such correction. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P4 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 application on merits and allow the correction on being satisfied that it requires such a correction. The order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-