1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:22.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN WP(MD)No.13226 of 2011 B.Prasanna Vinoth :Petitioner -Versus- Trichirapalli City Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Health Officer, Trichirapalli. :Respondent PRAYER:Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned communication bearing Ka.Aa.(P.E.) GOC/3360/2011 dated 18.04.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to effect change in the birth certificate of the petitioner's son as “P.VARUN PAUL” instead of “P.VARUN PAUL PRASANNA”. For Petitioner:Mr.K.Govindarajan for Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent:Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition, challenging an order by which the Corporation Health Officer of the Trichy Corporation rejected the request of the petitioner to correct the name of his child in the Birth Certificate. 2.Heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 3.The petitioner got married on 23.05.2008. A boy baby was born out of the wedlock on 27.05.2009. The name of the child was entered as P.VARUN PAUL PRASANNA, while registering the birth with the respondent. As a matter of fact, the initial 'P' stands for Prasanna. Therefore, there is no necessity to write the name Prasanna at the end. 4.After realising the above mistake the petitioner made a representation. But the same was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for correction of the name under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and directing the petitioner to have a Gazette publication made for change of name. 5.But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not seeking an alteration of his name, for whatever reasons. He is only seeking a correction. The correction is sought on account of the fact that the name of the child already carries with it the initial 'P'. Therefore, there is no necessity to include the name Prasanna towards the end. 6.The above contingency is covered by Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7.Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:- “15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths.- If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any 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 conditions 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.” 8. Rule 11 of the Rules reads as follows:- “11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths under Section 15.- (1) if it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or canceling the entry) as provided in Section 15 and shall in the case of local authorities specified in column (1) of the Table below, send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the officer specified in column (2) thereof. TABLE Local Authorities (1) Officers (2) Village Panchayat Village Panchayat President Town Panchayat Executive Officer Cantonment Executive Officer Municipality Commissioner Corporation Commissioner Neyveli Lignite Corporation Chief Health Officer (2) In the case referred to in sub-rule (1), if the register is not in his possession, the Registrar shall make a report to the officer specified in the Table in sub-rule (1) and call for the relevant register and after enquiring into the matter, if he is satisfied that such error has been made make necessary correction. (3) Any such correction as mentioned in sub-rule (2) shall be countersigned by the officer specified in the Table in sub-rule (1) in this behalf when the register is received from the Registrar. (4) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (4), the Registrar shall make a report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the officer specified in the Table in sub-rule (1). (6) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorised by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under Section 25 and on hearing from him take necessary action in the matter. (7) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation thereof should he sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under Section 8 or Section 9.” 9. A reading of Section 15 would show that a correction is possible under three contingencies, namely,  (i) Where an entry is found to be erroneous in form or substance;  (ii) Where an entry has been fraudulently made; and  (iii) Where an entry is made improperly. 10. The case on hand may fall under the third category. The third category of cases is covered by Rule 11(6). It may be even be covered under Rule 11(4). In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondent that there is no provision in the statute or the Rules is incorrect. 11. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to examine the request of the petitioner in the light of the above statutory provisions and take appropriate action within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Health Officer, Trichirapalli City Municipal Corporation, Trichirapalli. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.41093. ps RP/23.11.2011/3P/3C. W.P (MD)No.13226 of 2011 22.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/