IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3532 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KIRTANA MURALEEDHARAN,D/O. P.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 15 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.LATE M.GOPALAN, ADVOCATE,AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT MURALEE CENTRE FIRST FLOOR,MATTAMMAL JUNCTION, THEVARA P.O. KOCHI-682013. BY MR.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD ADV. MR.P.UNNIKRISHNAN ADV. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF CALICUT, CALICUT. 2. HEALTH OFFICER & REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, CORPORATION OF CALICUT,CALICUT. 3. CHIEF REGISTRAR, REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. MR.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R1-2 MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.3532 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a minor represented by her father and guardian. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the 2nd respondent whereby the petitioner's application for correction of the particulars in respect of the petitioner in the birth register maintained by the Corporation. The name of the petitioner differs in the school records and the birth register. In the school records, the name of the petitioner is 'Kum. Kirtana Muraleedharan' whereas in the birth register it is given as 'Keerthana.M.' The petitioner submits that in view of the decision of this Court in Varghese V. Director of Panchayat [2008(2) KLT 278], such correction is permissible. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation also who opposes the prayers on the ground that the particulars once entered in the birth register cannot be corrected later. W.P.(c)No.3532/09 2 3. I am of opinion that in view of the above decision of this Court, the 2nd respondent cannot take such objection. In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to re-consider the application for correction of the birth register filed by the petitioner in accordance with the above said decision as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.3532/09 3