IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12786 of 2009 Between: A. Animilli Ganga Raju, S/o. A. Raja Rao, R/o. H.No. 1006/C, BHEL, Township, R.C. Puram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Chief Registrar, (Births and Deaths) Dept of Medical and Health (Vital Statistics), Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, (Births and Deaths) Township Administration, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 action and interpretation of 2nd Respondent in his proceedings in Ref.HY/TA/EO/2008, dated 15-5-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent herein to add the name of the Petitioner's daughter as ANIMILLI SONALI in the Birth Register and issue Birth Certificate in the name of petitioner's daughter. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR A.S.SREEKANTH BABU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12786 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent – Registrar (Births and Deaths), BHEL Township Administration, Ramachandrapuram, dated 15.05.2009 whereunder the petitioner’s request for registration and issuance of his daughter’s Birth Certificate was rejected as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare appearing for the respondents. As could be seen, the petitioner’s request for issuance of his daughter’s Birth Certificate was rejected only on the ground that as per Section 14 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the request for issuance of Birth Certificate which is made beyond 15 years cannot be considered. At the outset, it is to be noticed that an identical question was considered by this Court in W.P.No.12972 of 2007, and by order dated 21.06.2007 it was held that there is no prohibition for entering the name of the person after due verification even at a subsequent stage if the identity of the person is not in dispute. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner’s daughter herein is also similarly situated. In the circumstances, following the order in W.P.No.12972 of 2007, dated 21.06.2007, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application and enter his daughter’s name in the Birth Certificate after satisfying himself that the certificate relates to the daughter of the petitioner. It is made clear that it is also open to the 2nd respondent to receive any further or additional information from the petitioner for establishing his daughter’s identity. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of application of the petitioner. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.06.2009 gbs