IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15835 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MARY THOMAS, AGED 74, W/O.LATE THOMAS, VETTATHUKANDATHIL VEEDU,AYANKAVUE,RAJAPURAM PO, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.UDAYAKUMAR SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KALLAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLAR PO, RAJAPURAM,KASARGOD DISTRICT,PIN 671 532, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE BIRTHS AND DEATHS CHIEF REGISTRAR/ PANCHAYATH DIRECTOR,PANCHAYATH DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.15835/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH ON 2.1.2010. P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT ISSUED TO ANIAMMA THOMAS VETTATHUKANDATHIL. P3:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 8.12.2010. P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM. P5(a):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MR.SANKARANARAYANAN, MEMBER REPRESENTING WARD NO.11 DTD. 3.12.201. P5(b):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MR.VIGNESHWARA BHAT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 20.1.2011. P6:- COPY OF THE REUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20.1.2011. P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 29.3.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.15835 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 notice passed by the Panchayath and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get Ext.P1 certificate corrected as per Ext.P4 application and issue consequential direction directing the first respondent to issue fresh certificate in place of Ext.P1 showing the name of the petitioner's daughter as 'Aniamma Thomas Vettathukandathil' and her place of birth as 'Panathady'. 2. The petitioner is the mother of Aniamma Thomas. Aniamma Thomas went to Rome for employment as housemaid and is still employed in Italy. According to the petitioner, her daughter's name is Aniamma Thomas Vettathukandathil and her place of birth is Panathady. The petitioner need a birth certificate showing her correct name and place of birth since it is necessary for her daughter to apply for the status of a permanent resident. The petitioner approached the first respondent Panchayath requesting to issue the birth certificate by making necessary corrections in the entries in the Register maintained by the Panchayath. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the certificate issued on ::2:: W.P.(C).No.15385 Of 2011 2.1.2010. Ext.P1 birth certificate was not accepted by the Italian Embassy pointing out certain discrepancies in the birth certificate viz-a-viz the Passport of her daughter. Ext.P2 is the relevant pages of the Passport of her daughter. The name shown in Ext.P2 is 'Aniamma Thomas Vettathukandathil' and the place of birth is shown as 'Panathady'. When Ext.P1 was produced before the officials of the Italian embassy, the Embassy noticed that the name and place of birth does not tally with Ext.P2 Passport. In the Passport, the name is shown as 'Aniamma Thomas Vettathukandathil' and the place of birth as 'Panathady' whereas the name shown in Ext.P1 is 'Aniamma Thomas, Vettathukandathil Veedu, Ayyankavu, Rajapuram, 671532, Kallar, Hosdurg'. For the said reason, the petitioner's daughter has not been conferred the status of permanent resident. Faced with this technical difficulties raised by the officials of the Italian Embassy, the petitioner wanted to correct the entries in Ext.P1 birth Register. Ext.P3 is the circular dated 8.12.2010 containing particulars of birth cum death registration certificates. As per Ext.P3, to carry out any correction in the certificate of birth and death issued by the local authority, an application has to be ::3:: W.P.(C).No.15385 Of 2011 moved by any one of the parents. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for necessary corrections. Ext.P4 is the application. The application is supported by the certificate issued by the Member of the Panchayath representing the Ward of the petitioner and also that of the President of the Panchayath. Both of them certified that the application for correction is genuine and liable to be considered favourably. Exts.P5(a) & P5(b) are the certificates referred above. Ext.P4 application is supported by Exts.P5(a) and P5(b) 3. The petitioner pointed out that the place where the petitioner residing was earlier part of Panathady Grama Panchayath. By the subsequent formation of the first respondent Panchayath, a small portion of the Panathady Panchayath, which included the petitioner's residence, become part of the first respondent Panchayath and therefore the first respondent alone has the right to issue Ext.P1 certificate and Ext.P1 certificate was issued accordingly. Therefore, the stand of the respondent Panchayath that the place of birth of the petitioner is within the territorial area of Panathady Panchayath is not tenable. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the very same area where the ::4:: W.P.(C).No.15385 Of 2011 petitioner has resided earlier, which form part of the Panathady Panchayath, is now within the territorial area of the first respondent Panchayath, after the formation of the first respondent Panchayath. In these circumstances, the stand of the petitioner that Ext.P7 order passed by the first respondent Panchayath is unsustainable in law, has some force. The learned counsel also referred to the decision reported in Varghese v. Director of Panchayath (2008 (2) KLT 278). In the said decision, this Court held that the Registrar has power to make corrections in names of persons entered wrongly by mistake by virtue of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 after conducting enquiry under Rule 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P7 communication is quashed. The first respondent Panchayath is directed to correct the name and place of birth of the petitioner's daughter as shown in Ext.P4 application. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-