IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27467 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- KURIAKOSE KANJIRATHANKUNNEL, S/O. ULAHANNAN, AGED 69 YEARS, KANHIRATHANKUNNEL, NUCHIAD AMSOM, NUCHIAD DESOM, P.O. MANIKADAVU, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF BIRTH & DEATHS, O/O. REGISTRAR OF BIRTH & DEATHS, ULIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.ULIKKAL, PIN - 670705. 2. THE SECRETARY, PADIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAPDIYOOR, PIN - 670 703. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERRY. 4. TAHSILDAR, THALIPARAMBA. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, NUNCHIYADU. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R2 SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R1 SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27467/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 13(3) OF THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND EATHS ACT, 1969 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF the FORWARDING NOTE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS REF.E.C.NO.638/2007 ON 5.12.2007 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.1/19359/07 DT 11.3.2008 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTIMATION DT 24.10.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REFUSING THE APPLICATION TO ISSUE NAC. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT 2.1.2008 RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT OF ONE 'AELY' EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICTE OF THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHER. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NON AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DT 19.10.2007. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT, ON THE BASIS OF THE ENQUIRY, DT 24.10.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27467 OF 2008 (T) ===================== Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T In respect of petitioner's daughter Smt.Shyni Mole, petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, requesting to enter her date of birth in the register maintained under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. It would appear that Ext.P1 was forwarded for necessary enquiries, and ultimately, it was found that in the 2nd respondent Panchayat the birth of the child was registered and Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by that Panchayat. Petitioner states that in Ext.P6, the name of the child, date of birth, name of mother and other particulars given are incorrect. According to him, birth was not registered in the Panchayat and therefore Ext.P6 is incorrect and cannot be acted upon and that he is entitled to the prayer sought in Ext.P1 application . 2. However, counsel for the 2nd respondent Panchayat, referring to the register maintained by the Panchayat in terms of the provisions contained in the Registration of Births and Deaths Act and the Rules framed thereunder, submits that the birth of WPC No. 27467/08 :2 : the child was registered on 30/5/1968 based on the intimation given in that regard. Therefore, the case of the Panchayat is that the name of the petitioner's child having been registered in the Panchayat, there arise no question of issuing a non availability certificate for the RDO to take necessary action on Ext.P1. 3. Therefore, while the petitioner contends that the name of the child was not registered in the 2nd respondent Panchayat, the records maintained by the 2nd respondent Panchayat shows otherwise. This factual controversy as to whether the name of the child was registered, and if registered, whether the particulars shown are correct or incorrect, are not matters, which can be resolved in this writ petition. 4. Having regard to the fact that registration of the petitioner's daughter has been made by the 2nd respondent, if there are mistakes in the particulars entered in the register of the 2nd respondent Panchayat, I feel it is only appropriate that the petitioner should be allowed to make an application to the Panchayat for getting the alleged mistakes corrected. It is directed that if the petitioner or his daughter makes such an WPC No. 27467/08 :3 : application duly supported by documents, the 2nd respondent shall consider such application and necessary orders shall be passed on the same without delay. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp