IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13423 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KAVANAL ULAHANNAN SAJU (K.U SAJU) S/O.ULAHANNAN, KAVANAL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADY P.O., REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY P.P. VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSE, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE,VADAYAMPADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE SECRETARY, POOTHRIKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POOTHRIKA P.O., KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 13423/2010-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 34840/09 DATED 22/01/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REJECTING THE REQUEST. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.68413/RD3/2009/JSGD DATED 21/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SIMPLIFYING THE MATTERS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, WHICH WAS RELIED ON TO RENDER EXT.P5. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13423 of 2010-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 communication issued by the respondent herein rejecting an application for correction of entry in the Birth Register for expanding the initials of the petitioner. Reliance is placed therein on a circular issued by the Government, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6. 2. The petitioner is now employed in Greece. In the passport, his name is shown as Kavanal Ulahannan Saju, which is supported by Ext.P1 copy of the relevant page of the passport. In the birth certificate issued by the respondent, the name of the petitioner is shown as Saju K.U. Ext.P2 is the copy of the birth certificate. In view of the difference as above, the petitioner required a correction of the entry in the Birth Register by expanding his initials to show his name as Kavanal Ulahannan Saju. 3. Going by Ext.P6 circular, para 7 permits an opportunity to persons whose names or sur names or initials have not been registered originally, to enter the same. It is also mentioned that if the original name is one which provides initials as well as sur name, there is facility to have a wpc 13423/2010 2 correction for including both in the Register. 4. The reason for rejection appears to be, based on para 1 of the circular. Therein, it is provided that the application for correction can be allowed once before the child joins the school. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Girijan v. Registrar of Births & Deaths (2003 (2) KLT 22). 5. Actually, the reliance placed on the said decision to provide such a stipulation in Ext.P6 circular, is not correct. In Girijan's case (2003 (2) KLT 22) the applicant sought for change of the name of the child from Bhagyalakshmi to Bhagyasree. It was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for change of name in the birth register. After noticing that the child is proposed to be admitted in a school, a direction was issued to the respondents therein to change the name of the petitioner's daughter from Bhagyalakshmi to Bhagyasree and to issue a birth certificate accordingly. 6. Apart from that, a Division Bench of this Court in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika (2009 (4) KLT 714), by interpreting Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, took the view that an opportunity to correct the entries in the birth register should be made available to the parties for avoiding further hardships. wpc 13423/2010 3 7. A reading of Section 15 shows that it allows correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. In Malavika's case (2009 (4) KLT 714) the Division Bench, after considering the various aspects, laid down the principle thus in para 4: “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.” 8. A reading of the circular dated 21.1.2010, Ext.P6 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 wpc 13423/2010 4 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 wrongly 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. 9. In that view of the matter, a circular cannot go against the stipulations in the Statute and the stand taken by the respondent cannot be accepted. Therefore, Ext.P5 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondent to reconsider the application and take steps to correct the entries as sought for by the petitioner, on the respondent being satisfied that the documents produced by the petitioner are sufficient to make such corrections. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/