IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27046 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARAVINDH KUMAR,S/O.SADASIVAN,AGED 19 YEARS,KUZHILAZHIKAM,KAIKULANGARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION,NEHRU PALACE, NEW DELHI 110 505,REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 2. THE PRINCIPAL TRINITY LYCEUM,FATHIMA ROAD,KOLLAM 691 013. SC RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27046 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE ICSE CERTIFICATE EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).19898/10 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).27046/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, though his name is to be written as “AravindhKumar”, in the School records and the certificates issued by the first respondent, his name is shown as “AravindKumar”. Therefore, he made an application to the second respondent, the Principal of the School where he studied for correcting the aforesaid mistake. The application was forwarded to the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the same by Ext.P4, stating that the application has been made beyond one year of passing the ICSE Examination. It is challenging Ext.P4 and seeking a direction for correcting the mistake, the writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. Obviously the rejection of the application is on the basis that the application is belated. In several cases, this Court has held W.P.(C).27046/11 2 that irrespective of the delay in making the application for correction, the applications are liable to the considered on merits and orders passed. In that view of the matter, rejection of Ext.P4 on the ground of delay cannot be sustained. Therefore I set aside Ext.P4 and direct that on receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, the first respondent will reconsider the application made by the petitioner on merits and orders thereon will be passed in the light of the documents produced by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs