IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 23086 of 2011(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PRASANTHAN.S, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, MULAKKAL HOUSE, THOTTAVANAM ATTINGAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.SAMEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101. 2. THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 23086 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.01.2010. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.02.2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.02.2010 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE ATTESTED COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RATION CARD. EXT. P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 09.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATTINGAL. EXT. P7: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 23.05.2011 SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.05.2011 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P9: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 11.07.2011 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P10: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED ON 13.07.2011 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23086 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed for a direction commanding the 1st respondent to enter the correct name of the petitioner's daughter as 'Arunima.A' in the Register and issue Birth Certificate recording the corrected name. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner and his wife are the parents of the child 'Arunima.A'. The child was born on 28.11.1997. Birth was registered before the 1st respondent. The name of the child is 'Arunima.A'. The petitioner submits that when the petitioner perused the Ext.P1 Birth Certificate it is found that his daughter's name was written as 'Anitha.S' instead of 'Arunima.A'. It is submitted that 'Anitha.S' is the name of the petitioner's wife, who is the mother of the child. Having noted the mistake the petitioner and his wife jointly submitted Ext.P2 application for correction of the name of their daughter on 9.2.2010. Ext.P3 is the application submitted before the 2nd respondent stating the same facts. The petitioner also produced the extract of school admission register, marked as Ext.P4, and relevant pages of the ration card before the 1st respondent. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.23086 Of 2011 Attested copy of the relevant pages of ration card is marked as Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer certifying that 'Arunima.A' is the name of the petitioner's daughter. It is stated that the 1st respondent returned the application and supporting documents produced without passing any order and without correcting the name as prayed for. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, allows the Registrar to correct the wrong entries made in the birth register. The 1st respondent has the authority to correct an improper entry made in the birth register and corresponding entry in the birth certificate. 4. This Court had occasion to consider similar question in the decision reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar (2010 (2) KLT 978). This Court considered similar questions and held that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 allows correction or cancellation of entry in the Register of Births and Deaths, that the legal position has now been laid down in the later decision by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika (2009 (4) KLT 714). The ::3:: W.P.(C).No.23086 Of 2011 Division Bench after considering various aspects laid down the law which reads as follows: “The law does not contemplate a person to have a wrong name in the register or a mistaken identity in the register or to have wrong particulars regarding the date, place etc. in the register of birth or death. It is also to be noted that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not create or extinguish any right; the Act is intended only to regulate the process and procedures of registration of births and deaths and the correction of any such entry. Once the Act permits such correction either in form or substance, the Rules are intended only to regulate the procedure and not to prohibit such correction. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 application on merits and allow the correction on being satisfied that it requires such a correction. The order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-