IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 33187 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOHAMMED ASIF.P.A, S/O.AHAMMED BABU.P.K, AGED 23 YEARS,184/12,PADIYATH HOUSE,SNEHAPURI, VADAKENADA,KODUNGALLOOR,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AHAMMED BABU.P.K, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS, 184/12,PADIYATH HOUSE,SNEHAPURI,VADAKENADA, KODUNGALOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE, SMT.MANJU RAJAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE REGISTRAR (BIRTHS AND DEATHS), PARUR MUNICIPALITY,NORTH PARUR. BY SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33187/2010-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE NO. 318120 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATION, KERALA. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S DRIVING LICENSE BEARING NO. 47/4480/2005 DT.D 03/06/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PETITIONER'S PASSPORT BEARING NO.H 0617062 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, CHENNAI ON 06/10/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S RATION CARD BEARING NO.1845004815 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR DTD. 24/12/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 24/07/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS ACT, 1969, READ WITH RULE 11 (2) OF THE KERALA REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS RULES, 1999 FOR CORRECTION OF HIS NAME IN THE REGISTER OF BIRTH. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE DECLARATION DTD. 16/07/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE DECLARATION DTD. 16/07/2010 SUBMITTED BY DR. SANU M. PARAMESWARAN, MUTHUPALACKAL HOUSE, PERINJANAM P.O., KODUNGALLUR. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE DECLARATION DTD. 16/07/2010 SUBMITTED BY SRI. V.S. JAYAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM.P.O., KODUNGALLUR. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.2170/2010 DTD. 23/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, LOKAMALESWARAM. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PH2 5748/10 DTD. 29/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 68413/R.D.3/2009/LSGD DTD. 21/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33187 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 8th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order passed by the respondent whereby he was informed that correction of the name of his son could not be effected in the birth certificate in view of Ext.P12. Ext.P12 is a circular No.68413/R.D.3/2009/LSGD dated 21.1.2010 issued by the Local Self Government Department. As already noticed hereinbefore, the request of the petitioner was rejected relying on Ext.P12 circular dated 21.1.2010. Whether the said circular dated 21.1.2010 is legal was considered by this in Shipna Jose v. Registrar (2010 (2) KLT 978). Evidently, Ext.P12 circular was issued based on a decision of this Court in Girijan v. Registrar of births & deaths (2003 (2) KLT 22). After a careful consideration of the judgment of this Court in Girijan's case (supra), this Court observed in paragraph 8 of Shipna's case (supra) as hereunder:- “A reading of the circular dated 21.1.2010 shows that reliance is placed therein on the decision reported in Girijan's case (2003 (2) KLT 22) to make a stipulation that a correction can be made only once and that too, before the child joins a school. A reading of the above judgment shows that actually this Court has not ordered any such restriction as regards correction of the entries are concerned. That was a case where actually the WP(C).No.33187/2010 2 correction was sought before the child wanted to join a particular school. The application was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for change of name in the birth register. While considering the pleas raised by the parents, this Court only observed that the child is born only on 2.3.1999 and it has not reached the age to go to school to have the name entered in the school record. If the parents want to change the name of the child, they are free to do the same. Probably, one sentence in the heading of the head note of the said reported judgment has been wrongly relied upon while issuing the circular dated 21.1.2010. Actually, that was not the real dictum laid down by this court.” After careful consideration, this Court found that in fact, there was no ratio, as contended by the respondents, laid down by this Court in Girijan's case. In Shipna's case it was observed that the respondents might have been misled by a particular sentence in the heading of the head note while reporting the said judgment. In the said circumstances, it was held that the respondents are not justified in relying on the circular dated 21.1.2010 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner therein. Further it was held that the said circular dated 21.1.2010 would not stand in the way of the respondents considering the application of the petitioner, on merits. The decision in Shipna's case was rendered relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika (2009 (4) KLT 714). A careful scanning of WP(C).No.33187/2010 3 the case on hand would reveal that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Shipna's case. In fact, I had an occasion to consider a similar case in W.P.(C)No.37010 of 2010. In the light of the aforesaid decisions and a careful consideration of the factual matrix involved in this case, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. In the said circumstances, Ext.P11 is set aside so as to enable the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner, on merits. It is made clear that Ext.P12 circular dated 21.1.2010 will not stand in the way of the respondent while considering the application of the petitioner, on merits and allowing the correction in case the authorities satisfied that it requires such a correction as requested by the petitioner. The respondent shall pass orders afresh on the application submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS