IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4579 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.K.MANY,S/O.KUNJAMMAN CHEMBOORY,HOUSE,NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR 680 015. BY ADV. MR.P.M.MANOJ SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATION POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12. 3. THE REGISTRAR OR BIRTHS & DEATHS MUNCIPAL CORPORATION THRISSUR THRISSUR. 4. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN FOR R4 ADVS. MR.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R3 MR.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4579 of 2008(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1(a) - TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF G.J.N. SCHOOL, NEDUPUZHA. Ext.P1(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 09.05.2000 ISSUED BY THE STATE LIBRARIAN, TRIVANDRUM PUBLIC LIBRARY. Ext.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF MY S.S.L.C. BOOK IN WHICH MY DATE OF BIRTH ERRONEOUSLY NOTED ON 02.02.1955. Ext.P3 - TRUE COPY FROM THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF MR. SUKU C.K. S.N.B. HIGH SCHOOL, KANIMANGALAM. Ext.P4 - TRUE EXTRACT COPY FROM THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF MR. SIDHARTHAN C.K. FROM S.N.B.H.S. KANIMANGALAM. Ext.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.03.2000. Ext.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 3.12.2007. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 4579 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks late registration of his birth in the Register of births maintained by the 3rd respondent under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of birth, his birth was not registered with the 3rd respondent. When he was admitted to school, his date of birth was entered in the school records as 28.6.1134 (ME), which corresponds to 10.2.1959 in the English Calender. This is evidenced by Ext.P1 extract from the admission register of the petitioner in the Government JB School Nedupuzha. However, unfortunately, in his SSLC Book copy of the 3rd page of which is Ext.P2, his date of birth has been entered as 2.2.1955. He applied for correction of the same before the appropriate authorities, namely the Commissioner of examinations. As per Government Orders applicable, for getting correction of date of birth in the SSLC book, the petitioner has to produce a birth certificate from the Registrar of births. Since the petitioner's W.P(C) No. 4579 of 2008 -2- birth had not been registered with the 3rd respondent at the time of his birth, the petitioner submitted an application before the 4th respondent, who is the authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, to authorise late registration of births, beyond one year. However, by Ext.P6, the 4th respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there is discrepancy between Exts.P1 and P2 in the matter of date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order. 2. According to the petitioner, it is because of the discrepancy in the admission register of the school and the SSLC certificate, the very necessity for correction of the date of birth in the SSLC book arose. Therefore there is no logic in citing the very same reason for refusal to authorise late registration of the birth of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that, when an application is filed for late registration under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the 4th respondent has a duty to enquire about the correct date of birth of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders as enjoined under the Act. Instead the 4th respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of the very discrepancy which is the reason for applying W.P(C) No. 4579 of 2008 -3- for late registration of birth. Therefore the rejection of the application on the reasoning that there is discrepancy between Exts.P1 and P2 is against logic is the contention of the petitioner. With the help of a counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent the learned Government Pleader supports the impugned order. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Provision for late registration of births is contained in Section 13 of the Act, which reads thus: “13. Delayed registration of births and deaths.- (1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefor, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified therefor and any such W.P(C) No. 4579 of 2008 -4- birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action.” 5. Sub Section (3) is the provision applicable in this case, since more than one year has elapsed since the birth of the petitioner. Going by the said provision, the 4th respondent is bound to pass an order after verifying the correctness of the birth and on payment of the prescribed fee. Therefore, it is incumbent on the 4th respondent to verify the correctness of the birth of the petitioner and direct registration of the birth of the petitioner appropriately in the birth register in accordance with the date of birth as ascertained in the enquiry. Therefore what the 4th respondent has to do under the Act is to make enquiries regarding the birth of the petitioner through his officers like the Tahasildar and the Village Officer. Unless he comes to a conclusion that the petitioner was not born within his jurisdiction, he cannot deny registration of the birth of the petitioner. I find considerable merit in the contentions of the petitioner that the 4th respondent could not have rejected his application on the ground of the discrepancy between Exts.P1 and P2. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is because of that discrepancy itself that the late registration of W.P(C) No. 4579 of 2008 -5- the petitioner's birth became necessary. Therefore citing that reason, for rejecting petitioner's application for late registration of birth itself is logically incorrect. For the above reasons, Ext.P6 is unsustainable. Accordingly the same is quashed. The 4th respondent is directed to make enquiries regarding the birth of the petitioner through the Tahasildar and Village Officer and to ascertain whether the petitioner has been born within the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent, and if so on what date. If he comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was born within his jurisdiction he shall pass orders under Section 13(3) of the Act directing late registration of such birth as on the date of birth so ascertained. Proceedings as above shall be initiated and completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs