IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 1972 of 2008 Between: G.M.Khaja Farooqui, S/o G.M.Dastagir Farooqui, r/o LIG-348, Bharathinagar, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad-500 032. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep., by the Chief Registrar (Births and Deaths) Department of Medical and Health (Vital Statistics), Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar (Birth and Deaths)-cum-Estate Officer, Township Administration, BHEL Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action and interpretation of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in REF:HY/TA/EO/2007, dt.31-12-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent herein to enter the name of the petitioner son's as Mohammed Omar Farooq in the birth registrar and issue Birth certificates in the name of petitioner's son in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B. Narasimha Sarma Counsel for the respondents : GP for Medical Health & Family Welfare The Court made the following O R D E R: The petitioner, who is a former employee with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (for short ‘BHEL’), got recorded the factum of birth of a male child to him on 8th August 1979 with the Township Administration of B.H.E.L. At that stage, the name of the child has not been indicated and consequently, the same could not be entered in the registers maintained by the Township Administration in terms of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act No. 18 of 1969) (for short, ‘the Act). However, when he submitted a representation on 26th December 2007 for incorporating the name of his son in the said register, where his birth on 8th August 1979 has already been recorded, the Township Administration of B.H.E.L., by its communication dated 31st December 2007, had declined to furnish a certificate of birth recording the name of the petitioner’s son, as the request has been made more than 15 years after the factum of birth of his male child was recorded. The Act has been made providing for regulation of registration of births and deaths in our country. Since registration of births and deaths will have significance on the civil and political rights of the citizens and will also have an impact on the policy making of the State, the enactment required the births and deaths to be compulsorily registered. Consequently, under Section 10 of the Act, it has been made the duty of certain persons to notify the births and deaths so that the same can be got registered. Section 15 of the Act has provided for the correction and cancellation mechanism of an entry in the register. It is relevant to notice the same here at once: “ 15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths: If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that only entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the condition on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.” Obviously, it has been recognized that sometimes the reporting of the factum of births and deaths may be inaccurate. Some other times, while recording the factum reported, certain mistakes may have unintentionally crept in relating to the date of birth or death or the name of the individual, the gender of the person and the place of birth/death, etcetera. Therefore, a mechanism for their correction has been contemplated and provided for. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15, an entry made in the register is susceptible of correction or cancellation, depending upon the circumstances warranting such an exercise. There is no other provision in this Act prescribing any time limitation for exercise of this power under Section 15 for correcting or cancelling the entries in the register. When once the statute itself has not recognized the necessity to prescribe any time limit for carrying out the corrections or cancellations of the entries in the registers maintained, it becomes patent and obvious that the law has made it open for such corrections or cancellations to be affected at any time considered appropriate. It is quite possible to visualize situations where the necessity for seeking cancellation or correction of the entries in the registers might arise long, long years later in point of time. Therefore, advisedly, the statute has not prescribed any outer time limit. Like in the instant case, while the birth of the son of the petitioner has been promptly got registered evidencing his birth on 8th August 1979, the need or occasion to seek correction of such an entry in the register would have arisen only in December 2007, for variety of reasons, which could be exclusively peculiar to such a claim. Therefore, rejecting the request of the petitioner to correct the entry relating to the birth of his son on 8th August 1979 by the 2nd respondent only on the ground that such a request has been made after a long lapse of time is improper. Each claim seeking correction of the entry has got to be examined on its merits and if the competent authority is satisfied about its genuineness, the entry in the Register can be corrected or cancelled under proper authentication. In fact, I am also supported in my opinion by a judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Dipika Arvindkur Pancholi v. State of Gujarat[1]. For the aforementioned reasons, I direct the 2nd respondent to carry out the correction with regard to the entry of registration of birth of the petitioner’s son on 8th August 1979, duly incorporating the required particulars such as, name, place of birth, etcetera, upon being satisfied that the son of the petitioner bears the same name. This exercise may be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 5th March 2008 ksld : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} [1] AIR 2003 Gujarat 102