THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 902 OF 2011 DATED:25-11-2011 Between: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. … Appellant And Smt. Bhongiri Sarala. … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.902 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The Municipal Corporation is in appeal against an order dated 1.8.2011 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15855 of 2010. 2. The writ petitioner had approached the Court for a change of her name in the Certificate of Birth in respect of her two children. 3. The writ petitioner had given birth to one male child called Pranay on 16.11.1998. The Certificate of Birth mentioned her name as B. Rukmini (Sarala). 4. Subsequently, she gave birth to another male child called Praneeth. In that Birth certificate, her name was shown as B. Rukmini. 5. The writ petitioner applied for a correction in the Birth Certificate to describe her as B. Sarala. This was rejected by the Municipal Corporation by relying upon Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’). This Section reads as follows: “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.” 6. The learned Single Judge was of the view that if the entry of a birth in a register is erroneous in form or substance, it can be corrected in terms of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. In the present case, there was no dispute that the writ petitioner was the mother of the two children and that at least in the first Birth Certificate, her name was shown as Sarala. All that she wanted was a correction in the Birth Certificate which was erroneous in form or at least in substance, inasmuch as her name was described as B. Rukmini (Sarala). She wanted alteration to describe her name as B. Sarala with regard the first Birth Certificate. 7. As far as the second Birth Certificate is concerned, it is no doubt true that her name was described as B. Rukmini and the word ‘Sarala’ did not form part of the second Birth Certificate. Since there is no dispute that she was the mother of both the children, the correction in the second Birth Certificate would be consequential to the first Birth Certificate. 8. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was correct in taking a pragmatic interpretation of Section 15 of the Act and permitting the Municipal Corporation to reconsider the application of the writ petitioner and to pass a fresh order in the light of the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge, which we endorse. 9. Under the circumstances, to this extent, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition was allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the writ petitioner. He says that the costs are excessive. 11. We are not inclined to interfere with the imposition of costs. Perhaps if the Municipal Corporation had been a little more reasonable, the situation would not have come to a stage where costs were required to be imposed on the Municipal Corporation 12. There are no merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim application is also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 25-11-2011 pnb