IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37010 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P. BABY, KALLUVEETIL HOUSE, PIZHALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -27. BY ADVS. SRI.N.NAGARESH, SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL, SRI.BINU PAUL, SRI.T.V.VINU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. REGISTRAR (BIRTHS AND DEATHS) CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011. 2. LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RD) DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. REMESH, R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37010/2010-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DTD. 01/08/1997 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DTD 20/06/1998 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RATION CARD. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE FAMILY CARD ISSUED BY ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH, PIZHALA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 23/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 23/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/07/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.24945/2010 DTD. 11/08/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/08/2010 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.68413/R.O.3/2009 DTD. 21/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.37010 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 communication dated 27.8.2010 whereby he was informed that Ext.P7 application for correction of name of his children in the birth register was rejected in the light of Ext.P10 Government Circular No.68413/RD.3/2009/LSGD dated 21.1.2010. The question whether the said circular dated 21.1.2010 is legal was considered by this court in the decision reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar (2010(2) KLT 978). A scanning of Ext.P10 circular would reveal that it is founded on the decision of this Court reported in Girijan v. Registrar of Births & Deaths (2003 (2) KLT 22). After carefully considering the judgment in Girijan's case (supra), this Court observed in paragraph 8 of the decision in Shipna's case (supra) as hereunder: “A reading of the circular dated 21.1.2010 shows that reliance is placed therein on the decision reported in Girijan's case (2003 (2) KLT 22) to make a stipulation that a correction can be made only once and that too, before the child joins a school. A reading of the above judgment shows that actually this Court has not ordered any such restriction as regards correction of W.P.(C) NO.37010/2010 2 the entries are concerned. That was a case where actually the correction was sought before the child wanted to join a particular school. The application was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for change of name in the birth register. While considering the pleas raised by the parents, this Court only observed that the child is born only on 2.3.1999 and it has not reached the age to go to school to have the name entered in the school record. If the parents want to change the name of the child, they are free to do the same. Probably, one sentence in the heading of the head note of the said reported judgment has been wrongly relied upon while issuing the circular dated 21.1.2010. Actually, that was not the real dictum laid down by this court.” It is thus obvious from the decision in Shipna's case (supra) that in fact, no ratio as contended by the respondents has been laid down by this Court in Girijan's case (supra). It was observed that the respondents might have been misled by a particular sentence in the heading of the head note while reporting the said judgment. It is after such careful scanning of the decision in Girijan's case (supra) that this Court held that actually no dictum was laid down in the said decision as understood by the respondents and therefore, the respondents could not have relied on the circular dated 21.1.2010. In the said decision, it was held that the existence of circular dated 21.1.2010 would not stand in the way of the respondents considering the application of the petitioner, on its merits. In view of the said decision which was rendered relying on a W.P.(C) NO.37010/2010 3 Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika (2009 (4) KLT 714), I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Writ Petition. In view of the above discussions, Ext.P9 is set aside to enable the respondents to consider Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. It is further made clear that Circular No.68413/RD.3/2009/LSGD dated 21.1.2010 will not stand in the way of the respondents considering Ext.P7 application of the petitioner on merits and allowing the correction in case the authorities satisfy that it requires such a correction. Respondents shall pass orders on Ext.P7 afresh expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.37010/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.37010/2010 5