IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4293 of 2008 Between: B.K. Nagamalleswara Rao S/o Sri B. Koteswara Rao, R/o Quarter No. 941-C BHEL Township Rc Puram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P., rep by its the Chief Registrar (Births & Deaths) Department of Medical and Health, (Vital Statistics) Hyderabad. 2. The Registrar (Births & Deaths) Township Administration BHEL., RC Puram 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 a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the interpretation of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Ref. No. Hy/TA/EO/2007, dated 31-12-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set a side the same and direct the 2nd Respondnet herein to add the names of the petitioner's son as BETHAPUDI KALYAN in the Birth Registrar and issue birth Certificate inthe name of Petitioner's Son and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.4293 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner, who is an employee of the 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 24th December 2007 for issuance of birth certificate, 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 might 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 26-09-1991, 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 issue birth certificate of his son 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 issue date of birth certificate of the petitioner’s son, 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) 28th March 2008 mrk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} [1] AIR 2003 Gujarat 102