HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22210 of 2009 Dated: 22.10.2009 Between: Bhongiri Hari Krishna … Petitioner And: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, reptd by its Chief Medical Officer of Health and Principal Registrar of Births and Deaths. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22210 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by the letter, dated 22.06.2009, issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health and Principal Registrar of Births and Deaths, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner addressed letter, dated 13.06.2009, to the respondent with a request to alter entries in the birth certificates issued to his sons by name Pranay and Praneeth. He stated that the name of his wife is Sarala and she is usually called in the family in the name of Rukmini and that, in the certificates the name of the mother of the children was entered as Rukmini, though her actual name is Sarala. Through the impugned letter, the respondent informed that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to, since correction is not covered under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has placed before this Court the copies of the birth certificates of both his sons issued in the year 1998 and 2000, respectively. In the certificate issued in 1998, the name of the mother is mentioned as B.Rukmini (Sarala) and in the other certificate it is shown as B.Rukmini. Obviously, the name was entered on the basis of the information furnished by the concerned members of the family. Assuming that there is any mistake or discrepancy in the certificate, the application has to be filed by the person who felt aggrieved. Neither the person certifying whose birth the certificate was issued nor the person whose name is sought to be at variance filed the application. Though the petitioner asserts to be the father of the children, his version alone cannot be taken into account. Therefore, the application itself was untenable. Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules made thereunder make a distinction between the correction of informal things on the one hand and substantive things on the other hand. The correction prayed for by the petitioner is substantive in nature. For this purpose, the aggrieved person has to file an application stating the reasons and it must be supported by the statement of two respectable persons. Such a procedure was not followed in this case. Hence, no exception can be taken to the order under challenge. The writ petition is dismissed. This, however, does not preclude the aggrieved persons from making the application strictly in accordance with law, and as and when such application is made, the respondent shall consider the same on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dated:22.10.2009 dr