IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12994 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. KHALEEL IBRAHIM.K.P., S/O.KOYAMUTTY HAJI, ADVOCATE, POOKKAYIL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. K.P.MOHAMMED LAZIM, S/O.KHALEEL IBRAHIM, AGED 15 YEARS, THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER KHALEEL IBRAHIM, POOKKAYIL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM-676 505. BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.12994 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to quash Ext.P3 and to issue a direction to the respondents to correct the name of the 2nd petitioner in the Register of Births kept in Malappuram municipality based on Ext.P2 application. 2. Second petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. His name was registered in the Malappuram municipality under the provisions of Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Act as K.P. Mohammed. Later, to the name of the second petitioner, 'Lazim' was suffixed and thenceforth, in all subsequent documents his name appears as K.P.Mohammed Lazim. With a view to avoid future confusion on account of such entry of his name, the first petitioner and his wife filed a joint application for correction of his name as K.P. Mohammed Lazim in the Birth Register. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P3 relying on a circular bearing No.68413/R/C3/2009 dated 21.1.2001. It is challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and W.P.(C).NO.12994 OF 2011 : 2 : also learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the very action on the part of the respondents in relying on the aforesaid circular dated 21.1.2001 is unsustainable on account of the fact that the said circular has been set aside by this Court in the decision reported in Shipna Jose v. Registrar ( 2010 (2) KLT 978). Learned standing counsel for the respondents also endorsed the same. Thus, it is obvious that Ext.P2 application was rejected relying on the circular that was already set aside by this Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that Ext.P2 requires reconsideration. To enable the first respondent to consider it afresh, Ext.P3 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P2 application in accordance with law taking into account the decision of this Court in Shipna Jose's case (supra). This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. cl