IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14582 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ VINTHA MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. MATHEW GEORGE, RESIDING AT NADUVATHEZHATHU HOUSE, MULAVUKADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU, SRI.K.V.BINOD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAVUKADU, MULAVUKADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION, COCHIN-11. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN, R2 BY SRI. S. RAMESH BABU,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14582 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a divorcee. She has a male child named Avin Jacob. In the birth certificate of that child, the petitioner's name was shown as Vini which is her pet name. But the full name of the petitioner is Vintha Mathew. Petitioner wanted her name to be corrected in the Birth Register and applied for the same. But she was informed that she should produce a certificate from the Village Officer stating that 'Vini' and 'Vintha Mathew' are one and the same person. Therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application before the 1st respondent Village Officer. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the 1st respondent is not taking action on Ext.P6 on the ground W.P.(C)No. 14582 of 2010 -2- that prior to her divorce, for sometime, she was residing at Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order, directing the 1st respondent to accept the original of Ext.P6 conduct enquiry thereon and issue a certificate showing that the person by name Vini shown in Ext.P4 birth certificate and the petitioner is one and the same person.” 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the petitioner's name is not included in any ration card or other official document in her possession and that is why the Village Officer could not take action on Ext.P6. 3. I am of opinion that the Village Officer cannot take such a stand. The Village Officer is expected to have information about all persons residing within his jurisdiction. He is also the competent person to issue certificates of the nature requested for in respect of persons residing within his jurisdiction irrespective of whether they are in possession of ration cards or not. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of with the W.P.(C)No. 14582 of 2010 -3- following directions: The 1st respondent shall conduct an enquiry as to whether the petitioner is residing in the address shown in Ext.P6 and as to whether she is popularly known as Vini. On such enquiry, if he finds that Vini and Vintha Mathew are one and the same person, he shall issue a certificate to that effect to the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/