IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 34826 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.P.VARGHESE, AGED 47, S/O.PAULOSE, A43, ASOKA APARTMENTS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH/CHIEF REGISTRAR, BIRTH AND DEATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34826 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner who is father of a girl child by name Niya Varghese, presently studying in standard 10, Choice School, Tripunithura, impugns Ext.P7 order passed by the Registrar, under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, having jurisdiction over the area of the Cochin Corporation. The petitioner also prays that 2nd respondent Registrar be directed to re-consider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner after affording a hearing opportunity to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the correct name of his child is ‘Niya Varghese’. But due to a mistake the name was wrongly entered in the register maintained by the 2nd respondent as ‘Neenu Varghese’. For correcting the name as ‘Niya Varghese’, petitioner relies on Ext.P2 certificate issued by the school authorities. When oral request to the 2nd respondent for correcting the wrong entry failed, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application. Along with Ext.P3 application, he submitted his own affidavit as well as the affidavits of two respectable persons who are aware of the truth that the correct name of the petitioner’s child is ‘Niya Varghese’. Ext.P4 is WP(C) No. 34826/2007 -2- the petitioner’s own affidavit and Exts.P5 & P6 are the affidavits of the other persons. According to the petitioner, without giving even a hearing opportunity to him, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7 order. 2. Shri.K.Anand, learned standing counsel for the Corporation has filed a detailed statement. It is contended therein that acceding to the request of the petitioner will amount to violating the relevant Rules. The registration of entries regarding the birth of persons born in hospitals is done on the basis of the informations supplied by the hospital authorities. In the instant case, since the hospital authorities had not mentioned the name of the child, in the original entry the name of the child was not included. But, later in 1998 the parents of the child, the petitioner and his wife, filed a joint application requesting for inclusion of the name of their child as ‘Neenu Varghese’ and it was on the basis of that joint application that the name ‘Neenu Varghese’ was incorporated in the register. Therefore, it is contended that the stand now taken by the petitioner that the entry of the name ‘Neenu Varghese’ is a mistake cannot be true. The statement refers to letter No.RBDI-42836/74/L/DIS dated 10/09/1974 of the Director WP(C) No. 34826/2007 -3- of Panchayat, letter No.1(2)(c)75/VA/RA Vol.III dated 21/11/1977 of the Government of India, Circular No.B1/9048/95 dated 01/04/1997 of the Panchayat Deputy Director and Circular No.B1/2815/2007 dated 20/03/2007 of Panchayat Deputy Director and produces those documents as Exts.R2(a) to R2(d). 3. I have heard the submissions of Shri.Mathew Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.K.Anand, learned standing counsel for the Corporation and learned Government Pleader. 4. My attention was drawn by Shri.Mathew Sebastian to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 and to Rule 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1990. The counsel would focus on Sub Rule 4 of Rule 12 and argue that once somebody asserts before the Registrar that the entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, even if the entry is made on the basis of a joint application to which that person himself is a party, it is necessary that the Registrar shall correct the entries in the manner prescribed under Section 15, if that person produces a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and the true facts of the case supported by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. Shri.Mathew Sebastian relied on a judgment WP(C) No. 34826/2007 -4- of this Court in Sivanandan C. Vs. Registrar of Births and Deaths, reported in 2007 (3) KHC 447 in support of his arguments. 5. All the submissions of Shri.Mathew Sebastian were stoutly resisted by Shri.K.Anand. According to him, it is not a case that the hospital authority have committed the mistake in reporting the name of the new born child to the Registrar. The hospital authority had not actually mentioned the name of the child and therefore, the birth was registered without the name of the child. Later, after some 5 years, the petitioner and his wife, parents of the child, filed a joint application disclosing that the correct name of their child is ‘Neenu Varghese’ and that was why that name was included in the register and Ext.P2 extract was issued to the petitioner upon their application. Learned counsel submitted that there is no warrant for invocation of the powers under Section 15 of the Act in this case, since the Registrar has not been satisfied that the entry which presently obtains in the register regarding the name of the petitioner’s daughter is erroneous either in substance or in form. 6. Shri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Government Pleader would draw my attention to circular No.B1-2815/2007 dated WP(C) No. 34826/2007 -5- 07/11/2007 issued by the Chief Registrar and would submit that vide paragraph 3 of that circular, which is the latest in the series of circulars governing the issue, the Registrars have been given power to make necessary corrections after ensuring that this provision is not being misused. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the Registrar has the power to make corrections on the basis of the material documents or items of evidence produced before him by the parties. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. The power of the Registrar to make corrections in the names of persons by virtue of Section 15 after conducting enquiry as envisaged by Rule 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1990 cannot be in doubt especially in the light of the Circular No.B1-2815/2007 dated 07/11/2007 of the Chief Registrar, which is binding on the 2nd respondent cannot be in doubt. What the 2nd respondent contends is that he is not prepared to construe the original entry as erroneous since the same was made on the basis of a joint application filed 5 years after the child’s birth was reported by the hospital to the Corporation. To err is human and when the father of the child obviously with the concurrence of his wife, the mother of WP(C) No. 34826/2007 -6- the child, who were joint applicants before the Corporation declares that the entry of the child’s name entered on the basis of the joint application is erroneous, I do not find any special circumstances attending on this case to suspect the bona fides of the request of the petitioner. The detailed statement, which has been filed by the Registrar, does not contend for a moment that the authors of Exts.P4 & P5 affidavits are not respectable persons or that they have nothing to do with the child in question. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant complete relief to the petitioner. I quash Ext.P7 and direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on Ext.P3 in the light of this judgment and facilitate change of the name of the petitioner’s child as ‘Niya Varghese’ after deleting the present entry ‘Neenu Varghese’. Needful in this regard will be done by the 2nd respondent at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) jg