IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17893 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.V.THOMAS, MUKKENCHERRY HOUSE, VALAYAMCHIRANGARA PO., PERUMBAVOOR BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE REGISTRAR, BIRTHS AND DEATHAS CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-11 BY SRI.S.RAMESH BABAU, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 17893 OF 2008 - E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P4. By Ext. P4, Ext. P2 application made by the petitioner for correction of the name of his daughter has been rejected by the respondent on the ground that such correction is not permissible in terms of Ext. P3 circular issued by the Directorate of Panchayat on 20.3.2007. Ext. P1 is the admission register of the school where the petitioner's daughter is studying and the name is shown as Shilpa Sarah Thomas. However, her name has been entered in the Corporation records only as Shilpa Thomas and it is in this background correction has been sought for by the petitioner which was rejected by the Corporation as per Ext. P4 order. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel for the respondent Corporation. What is relied on to reject the W.P.(C) No. 17893 OF 2008 -2- request made by the petitioner is Ext. P3 circular. Clause 6 of Ext. P3 circular itself shows that in certain circumstances correction of the name is possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment of this Court in Varghese v. Director of Panchayat {2008 (2) KLT 278} where it has been held as follows: “The power of the Registrar to make corrections in the names of persons by virtue of S.15 after conducting enquiry as envisaged by R.12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1990 cannot be in doubt especially in the light of the Circular No. B1-2815/2007 dated 07/11/2007 of the Chief Registrar, which is binding on the 2nd respondent cannot be in doubt. What the 2nd respondent contends is that he is not prepared to construe the original entry as erroneous since the same was made on the basis of a joint application filed 5 years after the child's birth was reported by the hospital to the Corporation. To err is human and when the father of the child obviously with the concurrence of his wife, the mother of the child, who were joint applicants before the Corporation declares that the entry of the child's name entered on the basis of the joint application is erroneous, I do not find any special circumstances attending on this case to suspect the bona fides of the request of the petitioner.” Taking into account the law laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to above and that too in the context of Ext. P3 circular itself, I feel, the rejection of the petitioner's application by Ext. P4 requires to be interfered with. W.P.(C) No. 17893 OF 2008 -3- 3. Accordingly, Ext. P4 will stand quashed and it is directed that the respondent Corporation shall pass fresh orders in the matter allowing the correction sought for by the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent Corporation for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-