IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4756 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.M.LATHA, W/O.K.SIVAKUMAR, CHIRUKANDOTH HOUSE, P.O.KADACHIRA, KANNUR DIST - 670621. BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN SRI.K.N.VIKRAMATHITHYAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KANNUR - 670001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695 001. R1 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 4756 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the action on the part of the 1st respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for correction of initial of name of his elder son, Arjun in the birth register maintained by the 1st respondent in the register of birth and death, as per Ext.P7. Name of elder child of the petitioner was entered thereon, as 'P.M.Arjun' and the petitioner seeks correction of initial as 'C.K.' instead of 'P.M.' It was the said request of the petitioner that was rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P7. Ext.P7 would reveal that it was so rejected in the light of Ext.P8 circular dated 21.01.2010. Ext.P8 is the circular bearing No.68413/RD3/2009/LSGD dated 21.01.2010. A bare perusal of the same would reveal that it was issued relying on a decision of this Court in Girijan v. Registrar of births and deaths reported in 2003 (2) KLT 22. Placing reliance on the said decision, it is made clear in the said circular that, correction in the register of births and deaths would be W.P.(C).No. 4756 OF 2011 2 permissible only once before the child joins a school. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in truth, there is no such decision in Girijan's case as stated in Ext.P8 circular and to buttress the said point the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Shipna Jose v. Registrar reported in 2010 (2) KLT 978. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the initial corrected in terms of Ext.P3 application, it is contended. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. A bare perusal of Ext.P8 circular would reveal that the same was issued relying on Girijan's case (supra). Relying on the said decision, it is stipulated that correction in the register under the births and deaths Registrar could be effected only once and that too, before the child joins a school. This aspect was elaborately considered by this Court in the Shipna Jose v. Registrar reported in 2010 (2) KLT 978. It is held as hereunder :- W.P.(C).No. 4756 OF 2011 3 “8. 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 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 wrong relied upon while issuing the circular dated 21.1.2010. Actually, that was not the real dictum laid down by this Court. The legal position has now been laid down in the later decision in Malavika's case (supra) by the Division Bench.” 4. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Registrar of births and deaths v. Pathrose reported in 2007 (2) KLT 358 held that when an application is preferred for correction of Date Of Birth, the rule to be applied is Rule 11 (2) and not Rule 11 (4). Shipna Jose v. Registrar reported in 2010 (2) KLT 978 has been rendered placing reliance on the said Division Bench W.P.(C).No. 4756 OF 2011 4 decision as well. In the light of the position so obtained in this case, that is, in the light of the decisions in Shipna Jose v. Registrar reported in 2010 (2) KLT 978, and in Registrar of births and deaths v. Pathrose reported in 2007 (2) KLT 358, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to get relief as sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 application afresh, without looking into Ext.P8 circular and in the light of the decision of this Court in Shipna Jose v. Registrar reported in 2010 (2) KLT 978, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE dmb