IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4195 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JACOB M.P., S/O.P.J.PAUL, AGED 36, MANGALASSERY HOUSE, AMICHAKARY, CHAMBAKKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY MR.S.SANAL KUMAR, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CHAMBAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. BY MS. K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.4195 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, Sri. Jacob M.P., claims to have been born on 10.7.1972. The name of his father is P.J. Paul and that of his mother is Lillykutty. According to the petitioner, these details were correctly entered in the SSLC book and the passport. When the petitioner got an employment in Australia for which purpose a birth certificate from the Local Authority was required as the basic document regarding identity, the petitioner applied to the first respondent for a birth certificate. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was given Ext.P2 certificate, in which his name is shown as ‘Chacko’, his mother’s name as ‘Rosa’, and his father’s name as ‘Ouseph Pilo’. According to the petitioner, his father's name is 'P.J. Paul' and his mother's name is 'Lillykkutty'. The petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent for correction of his name, his father’s name and his mother’s name in the birth register. The same has been rejected by Ext.P3 on the ground that the application is not complete and that no W.P.(c)No.4195/09 2 change can be made in the register as per the entries in the passport. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 and seeks the following reliefs: “i. Call for the records relating to Ext.P3 and quash the same by issuance of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2 nd respondent to make correction in the birth register relating to the petitioner in accordance with the S.S.L.C. and do the same forthwith”. 2. When the writ petition came up before me, since the petitioner contends that the names given in Ext.P2 are the church names of the petitioner, his father and his mother, I directed the petitioner to produce documents to show that the names of the petitioner and his parents included in Ext.P2 are the church names and Ext.P2 relates to the petitioner himself. What the petitioner has now produced before me are three certificates from the Village Officer stating that the persons shown in Ext.P2 are the same as the persons, who the petitioner claims to be. I expressed a doubt as to how a Village Officer could, without verifying the birth register, say with any amount of certainty as to whether persons mentioned in Ext.P2 are the same as some other person. I also enquired W.P.(c)No.4195/09 3 as to why, if the names included in Ext.P2 were the church names of the petitioner and his parents, he could not produce certificates from the church to that effect. The petitioner could not furnish a plausible explanation. He also did not seek time to produce such certificates. Instead he submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders in the writ petition. 3. Practically what the petitioner wants to do is to have a new birth certificate including a new name and new names of parents. As such there is no evidence to show that the entries in the birth register of which Ext.P2 is the extract relates to the petitioner at all, except that the address therein is that of his parents. When the petitioner contended that the names included in the birth register are church names, the best evidence for the same are the certificates from the church. The petitioner does not even offer to try to obtain and produce the same. He has also not been offered any explanation as to why he cannot obtain and produce the same. As such he has kept the best evidence away from this Court. In such circumstances I am not inclined to give relief to the petitioner relying the certificates of the Village Officer, in the absence of any explanation as to how without even examining W.P.(c)No.4195/09 4 the birth register the Village Officer could certify that the persons whose names are given in the birth register are the same as the petitioner and his parents. As such it is not safe to rely on the materials produced by the petitioner to direct correction of the names in the birth register substituting the petitioner's and his parents name therein which would be not correction but substitution, especially when the names bear no comparison whatsoever and no explanations are also forthcoming. In fact it is not clear as to whether Ext.P2 relates to the petitioner at all. In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that on these materials, the petitioner can seek correction of the birth register as requested by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.4195/09 5