IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8376 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHINE T.PAUL, S/O. PAUL, THANISSERRYKARAN HOUSE, KODAKARA, MANAKULANGARA (PO) THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH CORPORATION OF THRISSUR THRISSUR, THRISSUR DIST. BY SC SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 8376 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT The learned Standing Counsel Sri.K.B.Mohandas takes notice on behalf of the Corporation. I have heard the submissions of Sri.M.K.Dileepkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel Sri.K.B.Mohandas. 2. The petitioner, who is the father of a child by name Nevin, is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths having jurisdiction over the area of the Thrissur Corporation. Under Ext.P3, the Registrar has rejected the petitioner's application for changing the name of his child which is presently entered as Nevin to Nevin T.Shine. The change, which is proposed, is only that the child's name Navin is suffixed with of his father's name Shine. The Registrar under Ext.P3 has referred to the letter No.B 33368/04 of the Director of Panchayat and stated that the request cannot be granted. My WPC No.8376/2008 2 attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Circular No.B1-2815/2007 dated 7.11.2007 issued by the Chief Registrar (the Panchayat Director himself). On a perusal of paragraph No.3 of that Circular and a careful scrutiny of the relevant statutory provisions viz. Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 and the decision of this court in Girijan v. Registrar of Births & Deaths (2003 (2) KLT 22) , will show that the respondent did not apply his mind to the correct law which is applicable. I am fairly convinced that the request of the petitioner, who is the father of the child, is bona fide. After all the child is yet to commence his formal education. I quash Ext.P3 and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders allowing the petitioner's request to have the entry relating to his son Nevin changed as Nevin. T.Shine. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk WPC No.8376/2008 3